In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.
Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
Ouch. Starmer on Reeves 'and we are grateful to her for it' like a speech at a leaving do She's sat there, bags under the eyes, hunched back looking incredibly uncomfortable. She's utterly fooked
Looks broken. Politics is a rough old trade as, I think, Alan Watkins used to observe.
This is a fascinating period of politics. I think rather too many assumed that the countries problems would just evaporate when the awful Tories were booted out. I'm pretty sure the Starmer's mob thought that too and that ruling would be easy.
Its not.
There are some huge challenges, and frankly failing to get flagship policies through when you have a huge majority in your first year in office is not a good sign.
I know the Tories were not the best, but maybe they were playing the politics version of the Kobayashi Maru, and now its Labours turn.
Front bench falling apart live on TV. Wow, they are so utterly screwed
“We are grateful to her for it” sounds like something a boss would say in a leaving presentation for an employee, but isn’t particularly sad to see them go.
Yep, I mentioned that line too, it was so cold. This is after Kemi said 'how sad for the chancellor that he cant say she will keep her job'
He's made her sit there next to him in that state and hes probably going to sack her. What a piece of shit.
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
Good morning
Justice for victims is never a waste of money
What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims - Public statement of what happened - Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal - Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
That could be covered in the wider inquiry, the criminal law should only be focused on punishing the guilty and in Letby's case the maximum punishment has already been given
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
Good morning
Justice for victims is never a waste of money
What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
What’s the justification for this decision. It seems crazy. Entry level jobs are shrivelling and just adding more people, especially with AI coming, seems barmy to me.
Are we replacing the Boriswave with the Starmerwave.
‘ UK visa revamp allows lower-skilled office workers to come to Britain’
(...cut to viewcode spotlit on the centre of the floor, rocking back and forth in the foetal position, muttering "they don't know how to fly the plane, they don't know how to fly the plane" over and over again. The room gets darker...)
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.
Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
Not impossible they lose both. Polls haven't narrowed though, Labour were on 26 and within 1 or tied in the two polls taken over polling day
Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office
Unless a new Chancellor reverses things like the family farms and businesses tax and NI rise for employers I doubt most voters will care whether she stays or goes
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
Good morning
Justice for victims is never a waste of money
What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
Rubbish
No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
Rayner totally poker faced, Nandy shaking her head as the PM speaks then remembering herself and going full nodding like a bobble head Yeah, all is well in Labour land
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims - Public statement of what happened - Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal - Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
That could be covered in the wider inquiry, the criminal law should only be focused on punishing the guilty and in Letby's case the maximum punishment has already been given
It will be very 'interesting' to see which health professionals as opposed to health service managers are in the dock. NHS professionals tend to stick together, in rower individual professional units, until the moment comes to throw someone under the bus.
I do agree, though, that the parents of babies involved have a right to know what happened.
On the discussion around millionaires fleeing the country, I understand the arguments around VAT, income tax they pay etc etc. I just recognise the cognitive dissonance of making that argument as a reason not to close a tax loophole.
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
Good morning
Justice for victims is never a waste of money
What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
Rubbish
No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.
Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
Not impossible they lose both. Polls haven't narrowed though, Labour were on 26 and within 1 or tied in the two polls taken over polling day
It’s not impossible the Greens will win. It’s unlikely.
But thanks for your insight. I’m sure it’s as valuable as your pronouncements on the Iran-Israel conflict.
Ultimately, Starmer is paying the price for lying his way to the leadership of the Labour Party.
Anyone who wanted the measure of Starmer only had to watch him sit beside Corbyn for years, during which antisemitism was rife, all the while saying nothing, certainly not resigning.
This is a fascinating period of politics. I think rather too many assumed that the countries problems would just evaporate when the awful Tories were booted out. I'm pretty sure the Starmer's mob thought that too and that ruling would be easy.
Its not.
There are some huge challenges, and frankly failing to get flagship policies through when you have a huge majority in your first year in office is not a good sign.
I know the Tories were not the best, but maybe they were playing the politics version of the Kobayashi Maru, and now its Labours turn.
The country has some big problems, but when I look at recent British politics I can't help but feel that the country's leaders have played a poor hand very badly.
...Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing...
...and very difficult to do.
Much as I hate chinless wonders being given a Ford Fiesta by their rich parents and then wrapping it around a tree, rich parents will always try to give an advantage to their spoilt offspring and I don't see a way of stopping them. The best way to handle it is redistributive taxation on the rich parents and assisted places for poor children. Stuff like imposing VAT on private school is just being mean.
Let's not make it even more difficult by widening the scope beyond education! Parents will for many things in life use their resources to the benefit of their kids. Stopping that equals soulless inhuman totalitarianism. Appalling thought. I recoil from that as much as anyone.
No, what I'm talking about is eliminating their ability to do this in one area only - the purchase of greater educational opportunity for their offspring. This is a prerequisite of a high quality egalitarian schooling system. Which once in place will be transformational for us.
If you allow the most wealthy and influential to opt out, it never happens. The "let's make state schools so good that nobody wants to go private" is an avoidance argument (unless you're prepared to equalise the spend/pupil). And the "all you'll get is high house prices round good schools" is weary nitpickery.
Course it's hard to do what I'm suggesting - it's hard to do anything these days - but I really wish we'd have a bash at it.
Starmer has managed, by refusing to back a chancellor in tears hes forced to sit next to him, to make himself look a complete bastard when he sacks her or she resigns He's not up to the job
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
With the election on July 4th, it’s important that people are reminded about what Keir Starmer has publicly said over the last few years and what he would do with political power.
Keir Starmer would be an awful Prime Minister and he does not deserve your vote.
I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.
But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.
If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.
With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.
It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I am to some extent persuaded that inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.
a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.
Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
it sounds like you long for the world of Harrison Bergeron
I'm going to risk saying 'no' to this. I've only read S5.
On the discussion around millionaires fleeing the country, I understand the arguments around VAT, income tax they pay etc etc. I just recognise the cognitive dissonance of making that argument as a reason not to close a tax loophole.
An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.
Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
Not impossible they lose both. Polls haven't narrowed though, Labour were on 26 and within 1 or tied in the two polls taken over polling day
It’s not impossible the Greens will win. It’s unlikely.
But thanks for your insight. I’m sure it’s as valuable as your pronouncements on the Iran-Israel conflict.
I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.
But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.
If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.
With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.
It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I am to some extent persuaded that inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.
a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.
Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
So you back bringing back grammar schools then UK wide of course
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
Ultimately, Starmer is paying the price for lying his way to the leadership of the Labour Party.
Anyone who wanted the measure of Starmer only had to watch him sit beside Corbyn for years, during which antisemitism was rife, all the while saying nothing, certainly not resigning.
TBF Starmer did resign in 2016, as part of the large group of ministers who resigned.
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
Good morning
Justice for victims is never a waste of money
What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
Rubbish
No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
Letby is in prison for a whole life term, what more justice do they want, Letby to be hung drawn and quartered?
And that is assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong
I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.
But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.
If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.
With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.
It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I am to some extent persuaded that inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.
a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.
Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
What are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?
Can you not be serious even for a minute, William. We're trying to have a vision here, tell a story, act from principles - what everyone says they want.
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims - Public statement of what happened - Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal - Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
That could be covered in the wider inquiry, the criminal law should only be focused on punishing the guilty and in Letby's case the maximum punishment has already been given
It will be very 'interesting' to see which health professionals as opposed to health service managers are in the dock. NHS professionals tend to stick together, in rower individual professional units, until the moment comes to throw someone under the bus.
I do agree, though, that the parents of babies involved have a right to know what happened.
Which can be done by an inquiry and gross negligence claims if appropriate against managers, not yet more virtue signalling charges v Letby
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
Good morning
Justice for victims is never a waste of money
What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
Rubbish
No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
Letby is in prison for a whole life term, what more justice do they want, Letby to be hung drawn and quartered?
And that is assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong
You really do not get it
This is not about Letby but possible other victims and justice for them
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.
Ultimately, Starmer is paying the price for lying his way to the leadership of the Labour Party.
Anyone who wanted the measure of Starmer only had to watch him sit beside Corbyn for years, during which antisemitism was rife, all the while saying nothing, certainly not resigning.
TBF Starmer did resign in 2016, as part of the large group of ministers who resigned.
Although that was not over anti-Semitism, and Starmer rejoined as a minister shortly afterwards.
I think that when a political party you are a member, or MP of, has a leader that you disagree with, the question of when to resign your membership, or refuse to serve under the leader, is not as simple a one as people make out.
And in the case of Starmer it's also an unnecessary criticism, as there's plenty that he has done, or failed to do, as leader and PM to criticise him for.
I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.
But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.
If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.
With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.
It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I am to some extent persuaded that inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.
a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.
Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
What are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?
Can you not be serious even for a minute, William. We're trying to have a vision here, tell a story, act from principles - what everyone says they want.
The quickest way to reduce educational inequality would be to force the highest IQ to marry the lowest IQ but that just means fewer higher IQ and more average IQ and most beyond the highest IQ are more interested in getting a fancy car and big house than being the next Professor at Christ Church
If Reeves is to get the chop, which seems quite likely, Starmer doesn't have long to formulate a more convincing narrative with her replacement.
Failing that, his party will be forced to confront him as the problem.
Major survived 4 years as PM after sacking Lamont as his chancellor, depends who he appoints
Lamont's demise coincided with the substantial boost to the economy as a result of our exit from the ERM. He even managed a couple of sensible innovations before getting the boot.
It's hard to see any equivalence at all with the current position.
Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office
Unless a new Chancellor reverses things like the family farms and businesses tax and NI rise for employers I doubt most voters will care whether she stays or goes
I doubt most voters care about farm IHT and employers NI. It'll be personal tax and cost of living. Note: she's already outlasted Kwarteng, Zahawi and Javid Another 17 months and she'll have outlasted Hunt and Sunak with Darling and Hammond in sight. I think she's been totally captured by the Treasury and that Labour could do better, but I'd be tempted by good odds on her to be longest serving CoE since Osborne.
Alex Wickham @alexwickham Senior govt sources saying this morning that by forcing the govt to abandon its welfare reforms Labour MPs have likely killed off any hope of lifting the two child benefit cap
One says that’s a great shame for the govt’s child poverty ambitions. Starmer had wanted to lift it
Quite smart by the government that: we may have lost but we're not going to give you any satisfaction out of winning.
At least they get a little vengeful consolation from annoying the right people (which in McSweeneyland means the left of their own party). Shame about impoverished kids but..
Given the average UK mother has only 1.57 children now, why should they be required to fund mothers on universal credit having 3 or more children from their taxes they can't afford to? If you are going to have increased child benefit do it for all mothers.
A wealth tax however looks very likely in the autumn as this tax rising socialist government is still not tax rising and spending enough for its red flag flying backbenchers
I'm sorry to be a pedant, but the average UK mother has two children.
The average (mean) number of children born to a woman of child-bearing age is 1.57.
No if they had 2 children they would have 2.0 children, rounding up from 1.57 to 2.0 does not actually mean they have 2
The key point here is 'mothers'. Your 1.57 stat is women of suitable age, also including non-mothers (zero children). Mothers are a subset of those and have one or more children or they wouldn't be mothers. RCS asserts that among the subset of women who are mothers the average is ~2.
...Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing...
...and very difficult to do.
Much as I hate chinless wonders being given a Ford Fiesta by their rich parents and then wrapping it around a tree, rich parents will always try to give an advantage to their spoilt offspring and I don't see a way of stopping them. The best way to handle it is redistributive taxation on the rich parents and assisted places for poor children. Stuff like imposing VAT on private school is just being mean.
Let's not make it even more difficult by widening the scope beyond education! Parents will for many things in life use their resources to the benefit of their kids. Stopping that equals soulless inhuman totalitarianism. Appalling thought. I recoil from that as much as anyone.
No, what I'm talking about is eliminating their ability to do this in one area only - the purchase of greater educational opportunity for their offspring. This is a prerequisite of a high quality egalitarian schooling system. Which once in place will be transformational for us.
If you allow the most wealthy and influential to opt out, it never happens. The "let's make state schools so good that nobody wants to go private" is an avoidance argument (unless you're prepared to equalise the spend/pupil). And the "all you'll get is high house prices round good schools" is weary nitpickery.
Course it's hard to do what I'm suggesting - it's hard to do anything these days - but I really wish we'd have a bash at it.
Purchasing a house in a good school cachement area = purchasing greater educational opportunity Hiring tutors = purchasing greater educational opportunity Purchasing books = purchasing greater education opportunity Taking the kids on educational trips = purchasing greater educational opportunity
Why is Reeves under pressure? It's not her fault that Starmer can't get the sheep through the correct lobby.
The insinuation is that its her fiscal rules that are causing everything to fall apart and Infest the reforms they want to make with forced savings, cuts etc. They cant admit its bad ministers making bad policy so they have to conclude its bad economics making bad policy . If they conclude its both like much of the nation.....
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
Good morning
Justice for victims is never a waste of money
What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
Rubbish
No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
Letby is in prison for a whole life term, what more justice do they want, Letby to be hung drawn and quartered?
And that is assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong
You really do not get it
This is not about Letby but possible other victims and justice for them
No I do get it, spending extra on Letby charges, who can't get any higher jail term than she has, means the CPS NOT spending funds on charging other potentially guilty criminals who are not in jail
I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.
But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.
If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.
With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.
It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I am to some extent persuaded that inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.
a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.
Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
What are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?
Can you not be serious even for a minute, William. We're trying to have a vision here, tell a story, act from principles - what everyone says they want.
The quickest way to reduce educational inequality would be to force the highest IQ to marry the lowest IQ but that just means fewer higher IQ and more average IQ and most beyond the highest IQ are more interested in getting a fancy car and big house than being the next Professor at Christ Church
I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.
But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.
If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.
With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.
It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I am to some extent persuaded that inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.
a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.
Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
So you back bringing back grammar schools then UK wide of course
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted. There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.
My wife has just called Starmer a ' bastard " and she never swears
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt · 12m Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on
Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office
Unless a new Chancellor reverses things like the family farms and businesses tax and NI rise for employers I doubt most voters will care whether she stays or goes
I doubt most voters care about farm IHT and employers NI. It'll be personal tax and cost of living. Note: she's already outlasted Kwarteng, Zahawi and Javid Another 17 months and she'll have outlasted Hunt and Sunak with Darling and Hammond in sight. I think she's been totally captured by the Treasury and that Labour could do better, but I'd be tempted by good odds on her to be longest serving CoE since Osborne.
They do, both are unpopular in polls, Brits need to eat and employers rising NI is passed on to them with higher prices and job cuts so affects their cost of living too
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt · 12m Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on
She's probably gone in and told him to shove his job where the sun doesnt shine after his failure to support her
At the end of the day, the buck for this political mess stops with the PM, not chancellor/Treasury. Yes, this govt feels very overly driven by traditional Treasury thinking and a total lack of political antennae, but the reason for that is the vacuum at the centre.
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt · 12m Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on
She's probably gone in and told him to shove his job where the sun doesnt shine after his failure to support her
Or not. Chancellor confirms she has not resigned and is working out of Downing Street this PM
At the end of the day, the buck for this political mess stops with the PM, not chancellor/Treasury. Yes, this govt feels very overly driven by traditional Treasury thinking and a total lack of political antennae, but the reason for that is the vacuum at the centre.
It would be good if someone could articulate what "Treasury think" is. Is it merging NICs and income tax? Means testing WFP? Flat rate of council tax? Tax allowances for investment? Abolishing stamp duty?
I always get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of Treasury think is the kind of thing that PBers advocate for, if politically preposterous.
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt · 12m Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on
If I were Reeves I’d be tearing him a new one for humiliating her on national television.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.
Comments
A very public front bench collapse might be on its way
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Its not.
There are some huge challenges, and frankly failing to get flagship policies through when you have a huge majority in your first year in office is not a good sign.
I know the Tories were not the best, but maybe they were playing the politics version of the Kobayashi Maru, and now its Labours turn.
This is after Kemi said 'how sad for the chancellor that he cant say she will keep her job'
He's made her sit there next to him in that state and hes probably going to sack her. What a piece of shit.
If you think a bill is bad, you vote NO.
If you think it’s good, you vote YES.
You do NOT vote for things you deem a failure.
https://x.com/AOC/status/1940203419614302447
I don’t rate her as a chancellor but, as with any MP of whatever colour, I don’t wish her personally any ill.
Too many people, especially on the extreme left and right, get very personal and start wishing people ill.
It ends up with Jo Cox and David Amess, it starts with calling your political opponents scum or worse.
Polls haven't narrowed though, Labour were on 26 and within 1 or tied in the two polls taken over polling day
There might not be much difference between Labour's internal politics and the War Boys.
Although I cannot see Starmer as Immortan Joe...
Yeah, all is well in Labour land
I do agree, though, that the parents of babies involved have a right to know what happened.
On the discussion around millionaires fleeing the country, I understand the arguments around VAT, income tax they pay etc etc. I just recognise the cognitive dissonance of making that argument as a reason not to close a tax loophole.
This is a moment of intense peril for Starmer adds Sam Coates
But thanks for your insight. I’m sure it’s as valuable as your pronouncements on the Iran-Israel conflict.
No, what I'm talking about is eliminating their ability to do this in one area only - the purchase of greater educational opportunity for their offspring. This is a prerequisite of a high quality egalitarian schooling system. Which once in place will be transformational for us.
If you allow the most wealthy and influential to opt out, it never happens. The "let's make state schools so good that nobody wants to go private" is an avoidance argument (unless you're prepared to equalise the spend/pupil). And the "all you'll get is high house prices round good schools" is weary nitpickery.
Course it's hard to do what I'm suggesting - it's hard to do anything these days - but I really wish we'd have a bash at it.
He's not up to the job
Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.
* a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
Failing that, his party will be forced to confront him as the problem.
@GeorgeAylett
22 May 2024
With the election on July 4th, it’s important that people are reminded about what Keir Starmer has publicly said over the last few years and what he would do with political power.
Keir Starmer would be an awful Prime Minister and he does not deserve your vote.
Here’s why
https://xcancel.com/GeorgeAylett/status/1793363760947609764#m
Surely the Greens should be discouraging people having lots of children, in order to protect the planet?
Oh, sorry, for a moment I was thinking they were environmentalists.
'Hand on heart, do you think Rachel Reeves will be Chancellor next week, next month, next year
Yes
The media see a "gotcha" and this is not good for Reeves
Why on earth did she put herself through this?
A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_British_shadow_cabinet_resignations
Although that was not over anti-Semitism, and Starmer rejoined as a minister shortly afterwards.
And that is assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong
This is not about Letby but possible other victims and justice for them
@DPJHodges
·
2m
The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.
Or is that only after the 2 remaining pages of her flagship bill get scrapped?
And in the case of Starmer it's also an unnecessary criticism, as there's plenty that he has done, or failed to do, as leader and PM to criticise him for.
He even managed a couple of sensible innovations before getting the boot.
It's hard to see any equivalence at all with the current position.
The next budget could easily turn into mini budget 2.0.
Bad for Labour of course but also bad for the country
It'll be personal tax and cost of living.
Note: she's already outlasted Kwarteng, Zahawi and Javid
Another 17 months and she'll have outlasted Hunt and Sunak with Darling and Hammond in sight.
I think she's been totally captured by the Treasury and that Labour could do better, but I'd be tempted by good odds on her to be longest serving CoE since Osborne.
Hiring tutors = purchasing greater educational opportunity
Purchasing books = purchasing greater education opportunity
Taking the kids on educational trips = purchasing greater educational opportunity
How do you plan on stopping all those exactly?
They cant admit its bad ministers making bad policy so they have to conclude its bad economics making bad policy .
If they conclude its both like much of the nation.....
What's the topic we're meant to be on?
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
@nicholaswatt
·
12m
Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on
*chokes slightly*
The Chancellor was CRYING during PMQs?
“THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE”
Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children
At the end of the day, the buck for this political mess stops with the PM, not chancellor/Treasury. Yes, this govt feels very overly driven by traditional Treasury thinking and a total lack of political antennae, but the reason for that is the vacuum at the centre.
'She looks absolutely miserable and then asked if Reeves will be in post at the next election which Starmer failed to confirm'
Immortan may be nasty, but unlike Starmer he is competent.
Spokesperson for Reeves
It is a personal matter
I always get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of Treasury think is the kind of thing that PBers advocate for, if politically preposterous.
PM has given her his full support
I wonder if there is some deeper story?
Either way this feels like Sunak’s speech-in-the-rain. No matter the explanation, the symbolic power is overwhelming