@BarackObama More than 16 million Americans are at risk of losing their health care because Republicans in Congress are rushing to pass a bill that would cut federal funding for Medicaid and weaken the Affordable Care Act.
If the House passes this bill, it will increase costs and hurt working class families for generations to come. Call your representative today and tell them to vote no on this bill.
To be explicit I think most party members of all parties have principles and join a party they believe espouses those principles. As we are now seeing with starmer, as we saw with the last few years of the conservative party and as we saw with cleggs ld's....the high muckety mucks of the parties dont necessarily feel they are principles to abide by if it keeps them out of office
Apple TV are making a film/limited series of "Neuromancer". I have no idea if it's a good idea or bad idea. If they f**k it up as badly as they did "Foundation", I will be very sad
9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament. Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time
This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.
Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.
Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.
Really? HIPs…
She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful
Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.
9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament. Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time
This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.
Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.
Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.
Really? HIPs…
She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful
Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.
Not obviously mad...yet introduced hips....sorry are you sure here?
9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament. Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time
This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.
Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.
Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.
Really? HIPs…
She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful
Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.
Given her experience with HIPS, would she have bungled this bill as badly as Starmer?
9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament. Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time
This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.
Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.
Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.
Really? HIPs…
She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful
Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.
Not obviously mad...yet introduced hips....sorry are you sure here?
The concept behind HIPS (speed up the process from exchange to completion and reduce the costs by having a due diligence pack prepared in advance) makes huge sense.
It was appallingly badly executed and didn’t survive contact with the real world. But wasn’t “obviously mad”.
Although, IIRC, you have some personal history with HIPS so may not be unbiased
On Monday a member of my family was stranded at Edinburgh station for a number of hours along with a huge number of other people, and today I was stranded at New Street station for about 3 hours. Thousands of other people are still stuck there now, most likely. The infrastructure of this country doesn't appear to be able to cope with a couple of days of hot weather.
I suspect the Tories are fundamentally still in a deep hole, but I do have to say they have had a bit more spring in their step of late.
Whisper it, but Badenoch is starting to get a little better at PMQs. She had a huge open goal today, so it really would have been diabolically bad if she’d missed it. But she is starting to get less stilted and scripted. I think most of us still struggle to see her mounting a serious challenge for power, but there are perhaps a few signs that could - only could - start leading to some very tentative green shoots.
I listened to Kemi today and thought "Wow - you're rubbish at this". So many open goals, so many missed opportunities. She could have been entirely - on a human level - sympathetic to Reeves and left it to the lobby to 'show Keir up' for not noticing. She could have done the near opposite and made a point of Keir 'not noticing' what was going on under his watch.
But we just got some bland nonsense. It's only been a few hours and I can't even remember what she said. I would really like a strong with-conviction Tory party back in the fray. But this just isn't it.
Hahahah - pull the other one.
Every week you can watch arch-remoaner Hugo Rifkind and a team of lefties build Starmer up as a slick operator and laugh at what they perceive as Kemi's shiteness.
"I can see how Kemi Badenoch could have done that differently - I don't think she could have done it better" (Hugo)
"Impeccable" (Patrick Macguire)
"It slightly pains me to say it but Kemi Badenoch did rise to the occasion" (Ed Millibands former PMQs coach)
Kemi did actually reserve her fire (quite rightly) for Starmer, and called Reeves a human shield for his incompetence. It wasn't Kemi's question that upset Reeves it was Starmer's answer.
I suspect the Tories are fundamentally still in a deep hole, but I do have to say they have had a bit more spring in their step of late.
Whisper it, but Badenoch is starting to get a little better at PMQs. She had a huge open goal today, so it really would have been diabolically bad if she’d missed it. But she is starting to get less stilted and scripted. I think most of us still struggle to see her mounting a serious challenge for power, but there are perhaps a few signs that could - only could - start leading to some very tentative green shoots.
I listened to Kemi today and thought "Wow - you're rubbish at this". So many open goals, so many missed opportunities. She could have been entirely - on a human level - sympathetic to Reeves and left it to the lobby to 'show Keir up' for not noticing. She could have done the near opposite and made a point of Keir 'not noticing' what was going on under his watch.
But we just got some bland nonsense. It's only been a few hours and I can't even remember what she said. I would really like a strong with-conviction Tory party back in the fray. But this just isn't it.
PMQs isn’t the time for conviction. It’s the time for getting your soundbites in and boosting backbench morale. She did exactly what she needed to today, and she did it pretty well I thought. And I think she’s been utterly rubbish in about 80% of her appearances (of the other 20%, I’d say some have been ‘ok’ and the rest have been poor).
I wasn't expecting conviction from her at PMQ's - just not being rubbish. Even 'faintly memorable' would do. The broader Tory party comment was in relation to your own broader party comments.
Starmer's performance today ably summarised in the Speccie.
...Sir Keir did his usual porcine bloviation: Mrs Badenoch was (his favourite word) ‘unserious’, so much so that he quite ‘enjoyed answering her questions actually’. He then sputtered out a laundry list of his government’s alleged successes. As he did so the Chancellor looked up at him like a faithful dog that had been taken out to the woods. She waited for his support in vain. Tears began to flow. It was painful to watch.
That Rachel Reeves has been out of her depth is clear, yet there was tangible pity for her across the house as she wept during Sir Keir’s answers, having looked as if she’d been crying before. With the Chancellor sitting right next to him, tears visible on her cheeks, the Prime Minister blithely drove the knife in. Sir Keir refused to guarantee her position. It was like the ending of Of Mice and Men.
Behind the Speaker’s chair, a group of female Labour MPs looked over with real concern at the Chancellor. Behind the PM’s back, his deputy looked over with real hatred at the Prime Minister. I have attended many PMQs over the years and this one had the most uncomfortable atmosphere by a country mile.
On Monday a member of my family was stranded at Edinburgh station for a number of hours along with a huge number of other people, and today I was stranded at New Street station for about 3 hours. Thousands of other people are still stuck there now, most likely. The infrastructure of this country doesn't appear to be able to cope with a couple of days of hot weather.
9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament. Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time
This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.
Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.
Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.
Really? HIPs…
She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful
Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.
Not obviously mad...yet introduced hips....sorry are you sure here?
I don't doubt she is capable of bad policies or implementation of. But expectations aren't exactly high nowadays. I'd prefer Labour stick with Starmer for the same reason I wanted the Tories to stick with Sunak but if they don't they could surely do worse for an alternative.
Everything over 20k pension income (excluding state pension) is taxed at a 100% so no one ever gets more than 20k + state pension....not going to hit many private sector people for a start as it requires a 500k pension pot when you retire and few are going to have that.
I suspect there may be squeals about this from certain areas but lets face it those people that have accrued enough to go past 20k a year probably also own their property already. I reckon this would bring in a fair amount every year
It would bring nothing in, once you get anywhere near a pot generating 20k a year you invest it elsewhere into income generating products that are not 'pensions'
I suspect the Tories are fundamentally still in a deep hole, but I do have to say they have had a bit more spring in their step of late.
Whisper it, but Badenoch is starting to get a little better at PMQs. She had a huge open goal today, so it really would have been diabolically bad if she’d missed it. But she is starting to get less stilted and scripted. I think most of us still struggle to see her mounting a serious challenge for power, but there are perhaps a few signs that could - only could - start leading to some very tentative green shoots.
I listened to Kemi today and thought "Wow - you're rubbish at this". So many open goals, so many missed opportunities. She could have been entirely - on a human level - sympathetic to Reeves and left it to the lobby to 'show Keir up' for not noticing. She could have done the near opposite and made a point of Keir 'not noticing' what was going on under his watch.
But we just got some bland nonsense. It's only been a few hours and I can't even remember what she said. I would really like a strong with-conviction Tory party back in the fray. But this just isn't it.
Hahahah - pull the other one.
Every week you can watch arch-remoaner Hugo Rifkind and a team of lefties build Starmer up as a slick operator and laugh at what they perceive as Kemi's shiteness.
"I can see how Kemi Badenoch could have done that differently - I don't think she could have done it better" (Hugo)
"Impeccable" (Patrick Macguire)
"It slightly pains me to say it but Kemi Badenoch did rise to the occasion" (Ed Millibands former PMQs coach)
Kemi did actually reserve her fire (quite rightly) for Starmer, and called Reeves a human shield for his incompetence. It wasn't Kemi's question that upset Reeves it was Starmer's answer.
I thought Kemi did well when I watched it. I thought the bit about the Tories being the only party in favour of fiscal responsibility was good. Which may sound like chutzpah. But the stock of everyone else in this regard has fallen so far in the past 12 months that the Tories look like models of fiscal probity by comparison.
On a human level, I have a huge amount of persona sympathy for Rachel Reeves.
But if you applied for a job - perhaps with a slightly juiced-up CV - which you got, but then found you weren't up to doing that job, should I have any personal sympathy if you have a meltdown?
I’m pretty sure she caused a few people meltdowns when adding VAT to private school fees and gave absolutely zero fks and no personal sympathy.
It's difficult to feel too much sympathy when you look back at how arrogant she was before the election:
Wow. All the seeds are there indeed. The arrogance, the refusal to debate, the absence of ideas, and - most of all - a kind of panic when she thinks her mediocrity and unsuitability for the job has been exposed
And it has now been exposed and she’s in tears
My diminished sympathy has vanished
That’s very unfair of you. Don’t you remember her sympathy for Sunak and Hunt when they were trying to deal with crazy inflation caused by Covid and Ukraine. When she would defend them on tv and say, “be fair Alistair Campbell, (for it was he) these guys are doing a very hard job under very difficult circumstances not of their design or making.”
I also remember her sympathy after the election where she thanked Sunak and Hunt for stabilising things and helping bring inflation down so her inheritance was not as terrible as it could have been rather than fucking the economy by talking it down and making up stories about £20b black holes for purely political purposes.
So please, be fair to Rachel and have some sympathy.
There were a ton of unfunded spending commitments. That's a fact. Whether it benefits from being termed "£22b black hole" and to what extent incoming Labour genuinely didn't know about it, I don't know.
On the messaging and politics they were going for their version of the Cons "clearing up Labour's mess" - which ran successfully for the best part of a decade. But it doesn't seem to have worked for even a fortnight.
currently Labour are racking up a £22bn black hole about every 6 weeks. And its getting worse
Sure they are, Alan. And the Tories eat babies. Etc.
We borrowed £17.7 billion in May maybe I should make that £22bn in 5 weeks
We've been borrowing forever. Lab borrowing, Con borrowing, it's all the same. To make out this government is especially reckless is partisan nonsense.
Not at all
The stated aim of this government is to "fix the foundations". They havent.
Revenues are missing their targets because Reeves has crapped on the economy. The spending side of the equation is not being controlled.
OBR says Reeves will need another £20bn of tax rises just to stand still so the doom loop keeps rolling.
Everything you posted there about Labour is absolutely true. Your problem is that every word of it was also true about the Tories…
I didnt vote for the Tories and find it tedious that you lack the ability to move outside a binary world. However as things stand Labour are in power and the buck stops with them.
I didn’t say you voted for the Tories. I live outside the LabCon binary world- I’m a LibDem. But electoral it’s been one and then the other.
Simple truth - whilst Labour are in power, the mess we are in predates them winning the election 12 months ago. So the idea that we just blame them and therefore the LabCon cycle flips again is just daft - people are sick of it. Hence the rise of the Farage
lib dems though are just undecideds in labour or tory clothing as it suits them
@Pagan2 this is nonsense. I have been a liberal all my life. I am neither a Tory nor a Socialist and would vote for neither. Being a liberal is a distinct philosophy.
You belong to a party thats whole point is to go into coalition with which ever party will let a couple of you have ministerial cars.....as was proven in 2010....sorry you appear to lack any legs to stand on
This is utter nonsense. I have been a liberal for over 50 years. Do you really think what you just said can therefore be true? Or that maybe there are some real principles behind it.
If what you said were true for any of us we would have joined Labour or the Conservatives. If what you said was true why have we made it so more difficult for ourselves. This is just a bizarre view because you have a hang up about the LDs.
It makes no sense.
As I said I am not impugning yourself. I have no doubt you have principles. However I doubt your party does, nor for that matter do I imagine any of the others do. The lib dems will happily sell themselves to the highest bidder as I am sure will labour or tories if it comes to it
Yes I know you aren't @Pagan2, but nice of you to say so.
But doesn't that mean there is a problem with your statement. Because if you accept I have principles, then why not the others who have also joined? Why am I unique? Political parties are just a collection of like minded individuals. And if we were cynical, why would we join the LDs. That would seem to be an idiotic thing to do if that were our motives. We could gain power more easily by taking an easier route.
I suspect the Tories are fundamentally still in a deep hole, but I do have to say they have had a bit more spring in their step of late.
Whisper it, but Badenoch is starting to get a little better at PMQs. She had a huge open goal today, so it really would have been diabolically bad if she’d missed it. But she is starting to get less stilted and scripted. I think most of us still struggle to see her mounting a serious challenge for power, but there are perhaps a few signs that could - only could - start leading to some very tentative green shoots.
I listened to Kemi today and thought "Wow - you're rubbish at this". So many open goals, so many missed opportunities. She could have been entirely - on a human level - sympathetic to Reeves and left it to the lobby to 'show Keir up' for not noticing. She could have done the near opposite and made a point of Keir 'not noticing' what was going on under his watch.
But we just got some bland nonsense. It's only been a few hours and I can't even remember what she said. I would really like a strong with-conviction Tory party back in the fray. But this just isn't it.
Hahahah - pull the other one.
Every week you can watch arch-remoaner Hugo Rifkind and a team of lefties build Starmer up as a slick operator and laugh at what they perceive as Kemi's shiteness.
"I can see how Kemi Badenoch could have done that differently - I don't think she could have done it better" (Hugo)
"Impeccable" (Patrick Macguire)
"It slightly pains me to say it but Kemi Badenoch did rise to the occasion" (Ed Millibands former PMQs coach)
Kemi did actually reserve her fire (quite rightly) for Starmer, and called Reeves a human shield for his incompetence. It wasn't Kemi's question that upset Reeves it was Starmer's answer.
I thought Kemi did well when I watched it. I thought the bit about the Tories being the only party in favour of fiscal responsibility was good. Which may sound like chutzpah. But the stock of everyone else in this regard has fallen so far in the past 12 months that the Tories look like models of fiscal probity by comparison.
It’s very clearly their only option. It’s Farage’s big dilemma.
9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament. Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time
This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.
Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.
Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.
Really? HIPs…
She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful
Perhaps if Starmer was forced out she would be the best alternative? More politically experienced, not obviously mad.
Not obviously mad...yet introduced hips....sorry are you sure here?
I don't doubt she is capable of bad policies or implementation of. But expectations aren't exactly high nowadays. I'd prefer Labour stick with Starmer for the same reason I wanted the Tories to stick with Sunak but if they don't they could surely do worse for an alternative.
I suspect the Tories are fundamentally still in a deep hole, but I do have to say they have had a bit more spring in their step of late.
Whisper it, but Badenoch is starting to get a little better at PMQs. She had a huge open goal today, so it really would have been diabolically bad if she’d missed it. But she is starting to get less stilted and scripted. I think most of us still struggle to see her mounting a serious challenge for power, but there are perhaps a few signs that could - only could - start leading to some very tentative green shoots.
I listened to Kemi today and thought "Wow - you're rubbish at this". So many open goals, so many missed opportunities. She could have been entirely - on a human level - sympathetic to Reeves and left it to the lobby to 'show Keir up' for not noticing. She could have done the near opposite and made a point of Keir 'not noticing' what was going on under his watch.
But we just got some bland nonsense. It's only been a few hours and I can't even remember what she said. I would really like a strong with-conviction Tory party back in the fray. But this just isn't it.
Hahahah - pull the other one.
Every week you can watch arch-remoaner Hugo Rifkind and a team of lefties build Starmer up as a slick operator and laugh at what they perceive as Kemi's shiteness.
"I can see how Kemi Badenoch could have done that differently - I don't think she could have done it better" (Hugo)
"Impeccable" (Patrick Macguire)
"It slightly pains me to say it but Kemi Badenoch did rise to the occasion" (Ed Millibands former PMQs coach)
Kemi did actually reserve her fire (quite rightly) for Starmer, and called Reeves a human shield for his incompetence. It wasn't Kemi's question that upset Reeves it was Starmer's answer.
I thought Kemi did well when I watched it. I thought the bit about the Tories being the only party in favour of fiscal responsibility was good. Which may sound like chutzpah. But the stock of everyone else in this regard has fallen so far in the past 12 months that the Tories look like models of fiscal probity by comparison.
Yes chutzpah.
Similar to a man on trial for killing his parents appealing for mercy on the grounds of being an orphan.
On Monday a member of my family was stranded at Edinburgh station for a number of hours along with a huge number of other people, and today I was stranded at New Street station for about 3 hours. Thousands of other people are still stuck there now, most likely. The infrastructure of this country doesn't appear to be able to cope with a couple of days of hot weather.
Edinburgh was because of a suicide on the track taking down the ECML
On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."
Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.
You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward
It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week
Outside chance: Tory/Reform government if and only if they form an electoral pact.
I think that only happens if Reform slip back to somewhere near level pegging. Any further and Tories say no thank you, stay as we are and any pact will be highly limited in scope as Reform hold the cards. Pact by necessity if they are cancelling each other out or if Labour are, say, 6 or 7 points clear in first
IANAE but it seems obvious that there is a substantial area on the chart WRT polling where Tories and Reform basically prevent each other winning, and at the same time prevent their combined seats getting to near 325 or more. Perhaps cleverer PBers than me can elucidate with numbers
In that eventuality, however improbable it may seem, 2029 would see a Labour led government, there being no other options.
It is also obvious that a GE which in essence pitched Lab v ReConPact in 530 seats and LD v ReConPact in 100 seats would be a genuine contest, at this moment completely unpredictable, and also gold plated box office with free popcorn.
So its possibly Aesop's scorpions and prisoner dilemma time coming up. Politics won't be dull.
I think by the time we reach the election Reform will be comfortably ahead of both the Tories and Labour in the low 30s, enough to get a majority alone. Labour are in huge trouble, having to deal with hard left MPs that won't get in line to vote for their agenda and about to be eviscerated by the markets for lumping their policy failures onto the national credit card. Last time Rishi was able to stabilise the situation by undoing most of what Truss had announced, who's going to save Labour? They will be forced to implement swingeing cuts that they will need to rely on the kindness of opposition MPs to get through. It's going to be a bruising 4 years and I think Labour will be out of power for a generation after this election.
Thanks. My own intuition (=guess) is that by the next election (assume no Ref/Con pact) Reform will have levelled off, Tories will recover and Labour - who currently are actually doing OK by the new prevailing standards - will be in the lead, with Con/Ref split in such a way that they demolish each other.
Baxter for example: Lab 28 Ref and Con 22 each LD 14.
This gives us a Lab/LD coalition.
Might well end up like that although unless the LDs come up with a USP i cant see them increasing their vote from 2024 with 3 other 'players' in the race for first. I see them drifting (without a USP) back towards 10 or under and squeezed hard. Theyll do better (i think) if the Tories or Reform are trailing the other two more
Lib Dem polling usually goes up in an election when people are forced to remember that they exist. If they're still on about 14% mid term then there's no way they're going back to 10% or under. Plus they don't really need a USP in their ultra local fights in the leafy suburbs. Mind you, I don't see their seat count going up either unless they can work out how to take some seats off Labour.
On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."
Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.
You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward
It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week
Outside chance: Tory/Reform government if and only if they form an electoral pact.
I think that only happens if Reform slip back to somewhere near level pegging. Any further and Tories say no thank you, stay as we are and any pact will be highly limited in scope as Reform hold the cards. Pact by necessity if they are cancelling each other out or if Labour are, say, 6 or 7 points clear in first
IANAE but it seems obvious that there is a substantial area on the chart WRT polling where Tories and Reform basically prevent each other winning, and at the same time prevent their combined seats getting to near 325 or more. Perhaps cleverer PBers than me can elucidate with numbers
In that eventuality, however improbable it may seem, 2029 would see a Labour led government, there being no other options.
It is also obvious that a GE which in essence pitched Lab v ReConPact in 530 seats and LD v ReConPact in 100 seats would be a genuine contest, at this moment completely unpredictable, and also gold plated box office with free popcorn.
So its possibly Aesop's scorpions and prisoner dilemma time coming up. Politics won't be dull.
I think by the time we reach the election Reform will be comfortably ahead of both the Tories and Labour in the low 30s, enough to get a majority alone. Labour are in huge trouble, having to deal with hard left MPs that won't get in line to vote for their agenda and about to be eviscerated by the markets for lumping their policy failures onto the national credit card. Last time Rishi was able to stabilise the situation by undoing most of what Truss had announced, who's going to save Labour? They will be forced to implement swingeing cuts that they will need to rely on the kindness of opposition MPs to get through. It's going to be a bruising 4 years and I think Labour will be out of power for a generation after this election.
Thanks. My own intuition (=guess) is that by the next election (assume no Ref/Con pact) Reform will have levelled off, Tories will recover and Labour - who currently are actually doing OK by the new prevailing standards - will be in the lead, with Con/Ref split in such a way that they demolish each other.
Baxter for example: Lab 28 Ref and Con 22 each LD 14.
This gives us a Lab/LD coalition.
Might well end up like that although unless the LDs come up with a USP i cant see them increasing their vote from 2024 with 3 other 'players' in the race for first. I see them drifting (without a USP) back towards 10 or under and squeezed hard. Theyll do better (i think) if the Tories or Reform are trailing the other two more
Lib Dem polling usually goes up in an election when people are forced to remember that they exist. If they're still on about 14% mid term then there's no way they're going back to 10% or under. Plus they don't really need a USP in their ultra local fights in the leafy suburbs. Mind you, I don't see their seat count going up either unless they can work out how to take some seats off Labour.
I think the Greens are the ones to watch. If Zack wins the leadership it will take at least a couple of points off Labour. They have the potential to pick up a lot of Labour seats.
By the way, here is some more on the IMF for those that think that it will bail us out.
For an IMF programme to have any effect at all, it would have to be a decent size, say 10% of our GDP, or about £250 billion. We might have to borrow more - Ireland borrowed about 15% of its GDP in 2010 from the Fund and 20% from others. But let's stick with 10%. The biggest ever loan in the IMF's history, in 2018, was to Argentina and that was $57 billion, or about a fifth of what we'd need. Even that caused them some consternation at the time.
The IMF's current total loanable funds are around $900 billion, of which about $200 billion is already loaned out. So we'd need to borrow about half their remaining funds for a minimal sized loan. There is no way the IMF (basically the Americans, EU and Chinese) would be comfortable with lending such a huge amount to one borrower whose woes are entirely the fault of its lazy and entitled political class and electorate, and which is not facing an imminent bond market crash (as we print our own currency, we can't) as doing so would mean that its ability to help genuinely needy borrowers would be greatly diminished.
The IMF could of course ask its creditors to increase its assets. Would the taxpayers of the United States, China and the EU, which is who we're essentially talking about, be willing to ask their taxpayers to subsidise ours? Would a snowball last ten seconds in hell? Especially as they all have their own economic problems, some of them even worse than ours: the Japanese and Italians are much more indebted, France and the US are chronically fiscally incontinent, the Chinese debt bubble is frightening and they are much poorer, and the Germans don't like the idea of bailing anyone out ever. All except maybe the Krauts are quaking at the idea of higher interest rates.
So the IMF is a red herring, either as a getout for our lazy political class to pretend to be forced to implement the reforms they know are needed, or as a measure on its own merits to improve our economic performance.
9 Labour MPs voted against proscribing PA and some (not sure how many yet) of them joined the rally outside parliament. Surely Labour has to expel them? Its not a welfare rebellion, its open support for what will be a terrorist organisation under uk law in 54 hours time
This is what happens when such a big majority is won in razor thin margins. MPs have no reason to listen to the whips because the party can offer them no protection from being booted out next time around.
Yvette Cooper was certainly correct to proscribe PA.
Yup, one of the few good decisions the government has made. She should probably get the chancellor's job when they dump Reeves. Rare competence in the cabinet.
Really? HIPs…
She’s one of those mediocre people that float around in semi senior positions but never achieve anything meaningful
On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."
Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.
You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward
It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week
Outside chance: Tory/Reform government if and only if they form an electoral pact.
I think that only happens if Reform slip back to somewhere near level pegging. Any further and Tories say no thank you, stay as we are and any pact will be highly limited in scope as Reform hold the cards. Pact by necessity if they are cancelling each other out or if Labour are, say, 6 or 7 points clear in first
IANAE but it seems obvious that there is a substantial area on the chart WRT polling where Tories and Reform basically prevent each other winning, and at the same time prevent their combined seats getting to near 325 or more. Perhaps cleverer PBers than me can elucidate with numbers
In that eventuality, however improbable it may seem, 2029 would see a Labour led government, there being no other options.
It is also obvious that a GE which in essence pitched Lab v ReConPact in 530 seats and LD v ReConPact in 100 seats would be a genuine contest, at this moment completely unpredictable, and also gold plated box office with free popcorn.
So its possibly Aesop's scorpions and prisoner dilemma time coming up. Politics won't be dull.
I think by the time we reach the election Reform will be comfortably ahead of both the Tories and Labour in the low 30s, enough to get a majority alone. Labour are in huge trouble, having to deal with hard left MPs that won't get in line to vote for their agenda and about to be eviscerated by the markets for lumping their policy failures onto the national credit card. Last time Rishi was able to stabilise the situation by undoing most of what Truss had announced, who's going to save Labour? They will be forced to implement swingeing cuts that they will need to rely on the kindness of opposition MPs to get through. It's going to be a bruising 4 years and I think Labour will be out of power for a generation after this election.
Thanks. My own intuition (=guess) is that by the next election (assume no Ref/Con pact) Reform will have levelled off, Tories will recover and Labour - who currently are actually doing OK by the new prevailing standards - will be in the lead, with Con/Ref split in such a way that they demolish each other.
Baxter for example: Lab 28 Ref and Con 22 each LD 14.
This gives us a Lab/LD coalition.
Might well end up like that although unless the LDs come up with a USP i cant see them increasing their vote from 2024 with 3 other 'players' in the race for first. I see them drifting (without a USP) back towards 10 or under and squeezed hard. Theyll do better (i think) if the Tories or Reform are trailing the other two more
Lib Dem polling usually goes up in an election when people are forced to remember that they exist. If they're still on about 14% mid term then there's no way they're going back to 10% or under. Plus they don't really need a USP in their ultra local fights in the leafy suburbs. Mind you, I don't see their seat count going up either unless they can work out how to take some seats off Labour.
Im not sure about that. In 2024 it went up slightly 2019 and 2017 support fell during the campaign 2015 broadly flat
On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."
Which is the makings of a problem, as anyone who thinks there are alternatives who could both get the seats to form a government and in addition govern competently and seriously is making a substantial error of judgment. The only conceivable options thus far are, obviously, the Tories and Reform. Neither qualify.
You do seem to be very Labour but to be honest anything can happen going forward
It is far from a given Labour will form the next government especially after this week
Outside chance: Tory/Reform government if and only if they form an electoral pact.
I think that only happens if Reform slip back to somewhere near level pegging. Any further and Tories say no thank you, stay as we are and any pact will be highly limited in scope as Reform hold the cards. Pact by necessity if they are cancelling each other out or if Labour are, say, 6 or 7 points clear in first
IANAE but it seems obvious that there is a substantial area on the chart WRT polling where Tories and Reform basically prevent each other winning, and at the same time prevent their combined seats getting to near 325 or more. Perhaps cleverer PBers than me can elucidate with numbers
In that eventuality, however improbable it may seem, 2029 would see a Labour led government, there being no other options.
It is also obvious that a GE which in essence pitched Lab v ReConPact in 530 seats and LD v ReConPact in 100 seats would be a genuine contest, at this moment completely unpredictable, and also gold plated box office with free popcorn.
So its possibly Aesop's scorpions and prisoner dilemma time coming up. Politics won't be dull.
I think by the time we reach the election Reform will be comfortably ahead of both the Tories and Labour in the low 30s, enough to get a majority alone. Labour are in huge trouble, having to deal with hard left MPs that won't get in line to vote for their agenda and about to be eviscerated by the markets for lumping their policy failures onto the national credit card. Last time Rishi was able to stabilise the situation by undoing most of what Truss had announced, who's going to save Labour? They will be forced to implement swingeing cuts that they will need to rely on the kindness of opposition MPs to get through. It's going to be a bruising 4 years and I think Labour will be out of power for a generation after this election.
Thanks. My own intuition (=guess) is that by the next election (assume no Ref/Con pact) Reform will have levelled off, Tories will recover and Labour - who currently are actually doing OK by the new prevailing standards - will be in the lead, with Con/Ref split in such a way that they demolish each other.
Baxter for example: Lab 28 Ref and Con 22 each LD 14.
This gives us a Lab/LD coalition.
Might well end up like that although unless the LDs come up with a USP i cant see them increasing their vote from 2024 with 3 other 'players' in the race for first. I see them drifting (without a USP) back towards 10 or under and squeezed hard. Theyll do better (i think) if the Tories or Reform are trailing the other two more
Lib Dem polling usually goes up in an election when people are forced to remember that they exist. If they're still on about 14% mid term then there's no way they're going back to 10% or under. Plus they don't really need a USP in their ultra local fights in the leafy suburbs. Mind you, I don't see their seat count going up either unless they can work out how to take some seats off Labour.
I think the Greens are the ones to watch. If Zack wins the leadership it will take at least a couple of points off Labour. They have the potential to pick up a lot of Labour seats.
Zack. On first name terms are we......
And I noticed your little remark about the people who defend this country. WTF has happened to our medical profession? How's the investigation into Mary McCarthy going.
I see Keir has been in front of Nick Robinson to try and dig himself out the Reeves situation.
She’ll now be Chancellor for a long time to come.
We all know how long SKS’s positions last, so I wonder if he’ll regret saying that in a few weeks’ time like his other pronouncements?
Listening to him, you just realise his credibility is shot. He desperately needs a few successes to turn the page.
Whichever way wind blowing it turns the pages for him. He doesn’t have a single political or ideological position that couldn’t change in a few days. It makes Starmer into something so politically weak and unprincipled you wonder why he’s in politics.
Kemi meanwhile is built on ideological positions and principles. Things will shift quite quickly now to put the Conservatives on top of the polling.
I see Keir has been in front of Nick Robinson to try and dig himself out the Reeves situation.
She’ll now be Chancellor for a long time to come.
We all know how long SKS’s positions last, so I wonder if he’ll regret saying that in a few weeks’ time like his other pronouncements?
Listening to him, you just realise his credibility is shot. He desperately needs a few successes to turn the page.
Whichever way wind blowing it turns the pages for him. He doesn’t have a single political or ideological position that couldn’t change in a few days. It makes Starmer into something so politically weak and unprincipled you wonder why he’s in politics.
Kemi meanwhile is built on ideological positions and principles. Things will shift quite quickly now to put the Conservatives on top of the polling.
I think in his heart he is as he has said a socialist (something Reeves wouldn't say) and probably believe him in things like not using private health even for a loved one out of principle (I think when push come to shove he would, but he would feel very dirty doing it).
But beyond the legalistic stuff about House of Lords stuffing reform, he hasn't actually thought hard about how to achieve the sort of things a democrat socialist would want....beyond knowing full on Magic Grandpa a) won't work be allowed by the markets and b) that will scare the horses too much.
And of course, when you actually get their, things move so fast, it is very hard to find time to start doing the planning.
Was doing some thinking and I can't help wondering if part of Lab's problem is the fact that their inheritance was so good in 1997. Yes, people had had enough of the Tories but the economy was good and debt and taxes were low. The Blair Government didn't really have to grapple with tough financial decisions - just had to not do anything stupid.
By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.
Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.
Was doing some thinking and I can't help wondering if part of Lab's problem is the fact that their inheritance was so good in 1997. Yes, people had had enough of the Tories but the economy was good and debt and taxes were low. The Blair Government didn't really have to grapple with tough financial decisions - just had to not do anything stupid.
By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.
Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.
In 1997 Labour certainly inherited a much better situation, but they had thought about what they wanted to achieve and how to go about it. Coalition inherited a tough situation and both Tory / Lib Dems also had done plenty of planning.
I see Keir has been in front of Nick Robinson to try and dig himself out the Reeves situation.
She’ll now be Chancellor for a long time to come.
We all know how long SKS’s positions last, so I wonder if he’ll regret saying that in a few weeks’ time like his other pronouncements?
Listening to him, you just realise his credibility is shot. He desperately needs a few successes to turn the page.
Whichever way wind blowing it turns the pages for him. He doesn’t have a single political or ideological position that couldn’t change in a few days. It makes Starmer into something so politically weak and unprincipled you wonder why he’s in politics.
Kemi meanwhile is built on ideological positions and principles. Things will shift quite quickly now to put the Conservatives on top of the polling.
I don't see the Tories topping the polling any time soon (though I am not going to get caught out by giving them a 'ceiling'), but I do anticipate them getting back over 20 soon, and potentially overtaking Labour.
Was doing some thinking and I can't help wondering if part of Lab's problem is the fact that their inheritance was so good in 1997. Yes, people had had enough of the Tories but the economy was good and debt and taxes were low. The Blair Government didn't really have to grapple with tough financial decisions - just had to not do anything stupid.
By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.
Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.
I don't think your last paragraph is accurate at all - Labour didn't for one moment pretend it could "magically fix" everything - if anything, they over-emphasised how hard it would be to 'turn the page'. For example, this is part of the foreword to the 2024 GE manifesto:
We must rebuild our country. It will not be easy. Not only because there is no quick fix to the mess the Conservatives have made. But also, because their failures have sapped our collective confidence that Britain can still achieve great things.
Apple TV are making a film/limited series of "Neuromancer". I have no idea if it's a good idea or bad idea. If they f**k it up as badly as they did "Foundation", I will be very sad
Was doing some thinking and I can't help wondering if part of Lab's problem is the fact that their inheritance was so good in 1997. Yes, people had had enough of the Tories but the economy was good and debt and taxes were low. The Blair Government didn't really have to grapple with tough financial decisions - just had to not do anything stupid.
By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.
Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.
I don't think your last paragraph is accurate at all - Labour didn't for one moment pretend it could "magically fix" everything - if anything, they over-emphasised how hard it would be to 'turn the page'. For example, this is part of the foreword to the 2024 GE manifesto:
We must rebuild our country. It will not be easy. Not only because there is no quick fix to the mess the Conservatives have made. But also, because their failures have sapped our collective confidence that Britain can still achieve great things.
But that kind of language isn't serious. It's just a mixture of hyperbole and platitudes. We don't need to "rebuild the country".
Compare it with the Conservative manifesto in 1979 which outlines a serious critique of the status quo and a strategy to change the direction of the country:
For fourteen years Labour kept on saying austerity was a choice, yesterday was when those chickens came home to roost.
They seemed to forget that going into the 2010 election Alistair Darling was promising cuts more severe than Thatcher.
I maintain that the 2010 government should have taken a more Keynesian approach. Anyway not having followed the details I don't really understand why PIP was the focus of this welfare bill. Isn't the main issue a rise in people on out of work benefits?
5 in 6 people who receive PIP don't work. It is predominantly an out of work benefit despite nominally being classed as an in-work benefit. The issue is spurious claims and the government cuts didn't really address that issue and instead just cut it for everyone regardless of whether they actually should be getting it or not.
Again Labour already have a solution, they did it ruthlessly on 2001-2007 by targeting companies with bonuses on how many people they could kick off incapacity benefits which led to much tougher individual assessments and a tendency to refuse rather than accept and for appeals to also tend to rejection than acceptance. Labour successfully pushed over a million people off incapacity benefits and back into work with that approach and while there were some unfortunate edge cases, overall it was the single most successful policy that they had.
This is largely fiction - PIP has far more face-to-face assessments than DLA, the equivalent benefit at the time. In fact PIP assessments are generally considered far stricter than DLA, which had only 6% face-to-face assessments and PIP has far stricter qualifying rules on the backend to cover the descriptors, which are pretty vague. Getting DLA also automatically qualified you for the disability elements in Income Support without further assessments, the equivalent now would be ESA or one of the Limited Capability elements in Universal Credit. So if anything it was significantly easier to claim without assessment.
And if we really wanted to target the largest growth in PIP claims by numbers, then it would be physical disabilities and people over 45, rather than imagining that people with ADHD are suddenly claiming in huge numbers purely off the back of those. There is a wider data problem in that it doesn't seem possible to look at comorbidity, just lists of diagnoses involved in claims.
(edited to remove various incoherencies)
Except the biggest percentage rises in claimants are the under 45's
That doesn't necessarily contradict his point. If under 45s were 10% historically, and are 15% now, they would have had the biggest percentage jump, but still be less than a sixth of the total
Which is true but number of over 45's claiming is staying fairly stable.
From the point you made
2010......say 350k over 45's claiming....2025 350k over 45's claiming 2010......say 50k under 45's claiming......2025 125k under 45's claiming
Yes the number of over 45's claiming is bigger but the rise in claims is down to under 45's
Over 45's are still increasing, and their numbers are well over a million. Overall growth contains both younger and older claimants. 16-25, currently at 60 000, which is where the media were claiming that the growth is down to ADHD in that group (!!!!!) is a drop in the ocean.
If the same rise happens next year for the 16 to 25 group that 60000 turns in 270000 and the year after becomes 1,215,000
This is impossible. The entire PIP caseload only increased by 2% between October 2024 and January 2025—that’s about 74,000 extra claimants across all ages. 60,000 is the TOTAL number of 16-25's claiming PIP, not the annual growth. Your analysis of the "trend" is giving you a 350% increase in a single year because...
Heh, after our Corbyn discussions earlier he confirms on Peston a new party combining his group and indies of socialist persuasion across the country is coming
Heh, after our Corbyn discussions earlier he confirms on Peston a new party combining his group and indies of socialist persuasion across the country is coming
At this rate there will be 20 political parties standing at the next GE and all of them being shit.
Figma makes $220m a year in revenue Figma spends $110m a year on AWS
Jeff Bezos spends $55m on his wedding
Chump change for him...especially after his move to low tax Florida.
The thing I find really odd is that AWS is incredibly valuable to Amazong, but they have a reputation of treating their employees who on work on the system not much better than your average delivery driver e.g. you need to make 4 years to really get a big payout in share options but they consistently sack a big proportion of employees after 2-3 years.
The ROCAF's Thunder Tigers aerobatic team flew both the F-5A and the F-5E. For years, the Thunder Tigers flew the F-86 Sabre before transitioning to the Freedom Fighter in 1967, and then to the Tiger II in 1975.
Historically, thanks to not being super friendly with their cross-strait neighbor, the ROCAF couldn't afford to take fighters from its order of battle for use with aerobatic teams, so the Thunder Tigers' aircraft, unlike those flown by aerobatic teams of most air forces, remained combat capable with their guns, radars, and fire control systems intact.
Heh, after our Corbyn discussions earlier he confirms on Peston a new party combining his group and indies of socialist persuasion across the country is coming
At this rate there will be 20 political parties standing at the next GE and all of them being shit.
Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page
You have to wonder if Keir Starmer's poor leadership skills and lack of authority along with the chaos in the No10 operation has now created a vacuum which Angela Rayner has swiftly stepped into and she has now become the de facto Labour Leader?
Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page
You have to wonder if Keir Starmer's poor leadership skills and lack of authority along with the chaos in the No10 operation has now created a vacuum which Angela Rayner has swiftly stepped into and she has now become the de facto Labour Leader?
Christ we are in trouble is Big Ange is in charge of the country. The whole point of Starmer and Reeves was at least they were technocrats who had run some things (obviously we know Reeves was bullshitting).
Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page
In July 2024 I predicted Ange and Rach would hate each others guts (I also predicted Wes would get "tired and emotional" one Saturday night and flounce out of the Cabinet - That remains to be seen)
Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page
You have to wonder if Keir Starmer's poor leadership skills and lack of authority along with the chaos in the No10 operation has now created a vacuum which Angela Rayner has swiftly stepped into and she has now become the de facto Labour Leader?
Christ we are in trouble is Big Ange is in charge of the country. The whole point of Starmer and Reeves was at least they were technocrats who had run some things (obviously we know Reeves was bullshitting).
I suspect Big Ange - if she does become leader and PM - will be like Loopy Lizzie - Gone within a couple of months.
Ed Milliband may end up as a Rishi type figure coming in at the end to soak up the defeat.
Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page
You have to wonder if Keir Starmer's poor leadership skills and lack of authority along with the chaos in the No10 operation has now created a vacuum which Angela Rayner has swiftly stepped into and she has now become the de facto Labour Leader?
Christ we are in trouble is Big Ange is in charge of the country. The whole point of Starmer and Reeves was at least they were technocrats who had run some things (obviously we know Reeves was bullshitting).
I suspect Big Ange - if she does become leader and PM - will be like Loopy Lizzie - Gone within a couple of months.
Ed Milliband may end up as a Rishi type figure coming in at the end to soak up the defeat.
Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page
You have to wonder if Keir Starmer's poor leadership skills and lack of authority along with the chaos in the No10 operation has now created a vacuum which Angela Rayner has swiftly stepped into and she has now become the de facto Labour Leader?
Christ we are in trouble is Big Ange is in charge of the country. The whole point of Starmer and Reeves was at least they were technocrats who had run some things (obviously we know Reeves was bullshitting).
I suspect Big Ange - if she does become leader and PM - will be like Loopy Lizzie - Gone within a couple of months.
Ed Milliband may end up as a Rishi type figure coming in at the end to soak up the defeat.
Remember, Labour are ending the chaos! 😂
Miliband has too much baggage to be a Rishi type figure. The equivalent would need to be a young technocrat who isn't currently thought of as a leader.
Daily Mail pinning the tears on a bust up with big Angie on their front page
You have to wonder if Keir Starmer's poor leadership skills and lack of authority along with the chaos in the No10 operation has now created a vacuum which Angela Rayner has swiftly stepped into and she has now become the de facto Labour Leader?
Christ we are in trouble is Big Ange is in charge of the country. The whole point of Starmer and Reeves was at least they were technocrats who had run some things (obviously we know Reeves was bullshitting).
I suspect Big Ange - if she does become leader and PM - will be like Loopy Lizzie - Gone within a couple of months.
Ed Milliband may end up as a Rishi type figure coming in at the end to soak up the defeat.
Remember, Labour are ending the chaos! 😂
Miliband has too much baggage to be a Rishi type figure. The equivalent would need to be a young technocrat who isn't currently thought of as a leader.
Labour has no mechanism for MPs alone to pick a leader as the Tories did with Rishi. Members alone have to have the final say in a contested election, so if Starmer went then Rayner would likely win the membership vote and be Labour leader and PM until the next GE, whether Labour lost or won or had to do a coalition with the LDs
Four people have been charged over a break-in at RAF Brize Norton last month, when military planes were damaged, Counter Terrorism Policing South East say.
Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, and Jony Cink, 24, both of no fixed abode, and Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 35, and Lewie Chiaramello, 22, both from London, will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court later on Thursday.
The FCC would then have turned down their sale to Skymedia and probably terminated Paramount’s broadcast license for good measure.
When the rule of law breaks down it’s understand (if not admirable) that individual people and organisations bend
The increasingly unstable legal foundations for business in the USA is a major reason that we can expect considerable turbulence in the financial markets. US assets are being discounted as it is, but sometime in the coming months investors will lose patience and substantially and permanently down grade the entire USD asset base. The big bullshit bill undermines property rights for those that do not buy in to the MAGA world view. All it would take now is a big liquidity call, like the impact of a serious Japanese earthquake and investors could be discounting US assets by 20-30% in very short order. Trump is laying the seeds of his own destruction, but it is not clear that once confidence in the integrity of American business is lost, it can be recovered. Boeing, for example, has been accused of a corrupt relationship with the FAA and is now increasingly facing competition, not just from Airbus, but new competition from around the world. Trust, once lost, may never be recovered. The fall of the American century may be a whole lot closer than we think. All the more reason for the UK to rethink our own strategic dependence on the US and take a hard nosed and long term view of our own interests. Farage may want a closer alignment with the US, but the equivocal relationship of Trump with Putin is a clear and present danger to our own national interests.
On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."
I hope Ed Davey and his team are putting together some serious and practical plans. After all, next time it’s either them or Reform.
They're not. They're not serious at all. One of the many good parts about Kemi's excellent PMQs was that she called out all the other parties for not supporting welfare reform.
To think, when Starmer did his bleating 'I'm a lovable lefty really' u-turn on his Enoch tribute speech, I really thought things couldn't get any better for Kemi this week - but little did I know.
She had the most golden opportunity any LOTO will ever have to be honest, but boy did she stick it in the net.
But the Tories don't support welfare reform either. Performative cruelty to disabled people is not welfare reform.
Labour's original bill was cruel to genuinely disabled people, because it simply top-sliced £5bn off everyone in a completely arbitrary way. The Tories are in favour of reforming the system so that the genuinely disabled are protected, and those with very low level mental conditions that would actually be helped by work (not to mention those just ripping the piss) are encouraged into work. Unless you believe that one in four people is genuinely disabled, that is what any sensible person or party should support.
I've argued that Labour got this one wrong, but I think the idea that the Conservatives would do benefit reform sensibly is risible - they had a shot at one part of that (UC) under IDS, and Osborne and Cameron wrecked it for short term savings.
Nor would they give a damn for disabled people under the current leadership. If they gave a damn we would have seen 101 little injustices and inconsistencies resolved over the last 15 years, and little or nothing has happened.
The most recent prominent example was ticket office closure to save some money, when disabled groups were not consulted and they attempted to pass it off as an initiative of Network Rail. Equally, last time they did Reform around Work Capacity Assessment they introduced a massive bureaucracy run by low skilled staff - anyone who knows those who have been through the system is aware of that.
This is one reason I left the Conservative Party, and I see no reason why I would go back whilst it is run by cynical, headless chickens.
The FCC would then have turned down their sale to Skymedia and probably terminated Paramount’s broadcast license for good measure.
When the rule of law breaks down it’s understand (if not admirable) that individual people and organisations bend
The increasingly unstable legal foundations for business in the USA is a major reason that we can expect considerable turbulence in the financial markets. US assets are being discounted as it is, but sometime in the coming months investors will lose patience and substantially and permanently down grade the entire USD asset base. The big bullshit bill undermines property rights for those that do not buy in to the MAGA world view. All it would take now is a big liquidity call, like the impact of a serious Japanese earthquake and investors could be discounting US assets by 20-30% in very short order. Trump is laying the seeds of his own destruction, but it is not clear that once confidence in the integrity of American business is lost, it can be recovered. Boeing, for example, has been accused of a corrupt relationship with the FAA and is now increasingly facing competition, not just from Airbus, but new competition from around the world. Trust, once lost, may never be recovered. The fall of the American century may be a whole lot closer than we think. All the more reason for the UK to rethink our own strategic dependence on the US and take a hard nosed and long term view of our own interests. Farage may want a closer alignment with the US, but the equivocal relationship of Trump with Putin is a clear and present danger to our own national interests.
On our relationship with the US - yes, this has been obvious since last year and has been very obvious indeed since Trump became Potus.
I think that all the Western leaders are aware of this to different degrees - Trump is a malignant narcissist on a policy journey where his criteria is enriching and glorifying himself. Starmer is one of the most aware, as we are one of the countries most tightly meshed in.
In general I think they are playing with two goals in mind:
1 - Managing Trump and the USA relationship, where one of the aims is strategic autonomy ie making the USA as irrelevant as possible.
2 - Keeping an eye on what of the USA and the USA relationship may be salvageable post-Trump.
IMO the American Century has already gone, subject to things I cannot foresee; it is a dead man walking. Trump has already burnt down the political capital that maintained it, soft capital (USAID, VOA and the rest), and is busily burning down the USA as a constitutional republic, and the international order that supported it including the rule of international law.
In these circumstances, it seems to me that the place of Europe is first and foremost to stand for rule of law, in whatever set of evolved institutions we need to place it. We can do that within Europe, and build wider influence where we can.
The FCC would then have turned down their sale to Skymedia and probably terminated Paramount’s broadcast license for good measure.
When the rule of law breaks down it’s understand (if not admirable) that individual people and organisations bend
The increasingly unstable legal foundations for business in the USA is a major reason that we can expect considerable turbulence in the financial markets. US assets are being discounted as it is, but sometime in the coming months investors will lose patience and substantially and permanently down grade the entire USD asset base. The big bullshit bill undermines property rights for those that do not buy in to the MAGA world view. All it would take now is a big liquidity call, like the impact of a serious Japanese earthquake and investors could be discounting US assets by 20-30% in very short order. Trump is laying the seeds of his own destruction, but it is not clear that once confidence in the integrity of American business is lost, it can be recovered. Boeing, for example, has been accused of a corrupt relationship with the FAA and is now increasingly facing competition, not just from Airbus, but new competition from around the world. Trust, once lost, may never be recovered. The fall of the American century may be a whole lot closer than we think. All the more reason for the UK to rethink our own strategic dependence on the US and take a hard nosed and long term view of our own interests. Farage may want a closer alignment with the US, but the equivocal relationship of Trump with Putin is a clear and present danger to our own national interests.
On our relationship with the US - yes, this has been obvious since last year and has been very obvious indeed since Trump became Potus.
I think that all the Western leaders are aware of this to different degrees - Trump is a malignant narcissist on a policy journey where his criteria is enriching and glorifying himself. Starmer is one of the most aware, as we are one of the countries most tightly meshed in.
In general I think they are playing with two goals in mind:
1 - Managing Trump and the USA relationship, where one of the aims is strategic autonomy ie making the USA as irrelevant as possible.
2 - Keeping an eye on what of the USA and the USA relationship may be salvageable post-Trump.
IMO the American Century has already gone, subject to things I cannot foresee; it is a dead man walking. Trump has already burnt down the political capital that maintained it, soft capital (USAID, VOA and the rest), and is busily burning down the USA as a constitutional republic, and the international order that supported it including the rule of international law.
In these circumstances, it seems to me that the place of Europe is first and foremost to stand for rule of law, in whatever set of evolved institutions we need to place it. We can do that within Europe, and build wider influence where we can.
Bonus: At a quick check, Europe as a whole has around half of all the FDI in the USA. The UK is the 2nd largest individual European investor country after Gremany, but the growth of our holdings there is now flat (looking at 2018 vs 2023 numbers).
Is that Brexit related, or "USA interests buying up the UK" related?
On Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was "not going anywhere" after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister's questions sparked speculation about her political future.
The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.
Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: "Labour rows over welfare reform haven't just harmed the public's view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.
"The public is starting to doubt Labour's ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn't end up going the same way."
I hope Ed Davey and his team are putting together some serious and practical plans. After all, next time it’s either them or Reform.
They're not. They're not serious at all. One of the many good parts about Kemi's excellent PMQs was that she called out all the other parties for not supporting welfare reform.
To think, when Starmer did his bleating 'I'm a lovable lefty really' u-turn on his Enoch tribute speech, I really thought things couldn't get any better for Kemi this week - but little did I know.
She had the most golden opportunity any LOTO will ever have to be honest, but boy did she stick it in the net.
But the Tories don't support welfare reform either. Performative cruelty to disabled people is not welfare reform.
Labour's original bill was cruel to genuinely disabled people, because it simply top-sliced £5bn off everyone in a completely arbitrary way. The Tories are in favour of reforming the system so that the genuinely disabled are protected, and those with very low level mental conditions that would actually be helped by work (not to mention those just ripping the piss) are encouraged into work. Unless you believe that one in four people is genuinely disabled, that is what any sensible person or party should support.
I've argued that Labour got this one wrong, but I think the idea that the Conservatives would do benefit reform sensibly is risible - they had a shot at one part of that (UC) under IDS, and Osborne and Cameron wrecked it for short term savings.
Nor would they give a damn for disabled people under the current leadership. If they gave a damn we would have seen 101 little injustices and inconsistencies resolved over the last 15 years, and little or nothing has happened.
The most recent prominent example was ticket office closure to save some money, when disabled groups were not consulted and they attempted to pass it off as an initiative of Network Rail. Equally, last time they did Reform around Work Capacity Assessment they introduced a massive bureaucracy run by low skilled staff - anyone who knows those who have been through the system is aware of that.
This is one reason I left the Conservative Party, and I see no reason why I would go back whilst it is run by cynical, headless chickens.
I'm not disabled and the ticket office closures pissed me off.
It's the one chance you have to discuss ticketing, train and service problems with a member of staff who has access to the systems - the guards dont.
The ROCAF's Thunder Tigers aerobatic team flew both the F-5A and the F-5E. For years, the Thunder Tigers flew the F-86 Sabre before transitioning to the Freedom Fighter in 1967, and then to the Tiger II in 1975.
Historically, thanks to not being super friendly with their cross-strait neighbor, the ROCAF couldn't afford to take fighters from its order of battle for use with aerobatic teams, so the Thunder Tigers' aircraft, unlike those flown by aerobatic teams of most air forces, remained combat capable with their guns, radars, and fire control systems intact.
This makes zero sense for the RAF. Only one of the RAFAT Hawks (239) had the weapons fit (gunsight, weapons control panel, etc.) and that's all probably gone in the gash pile years ago. Even if weapons capability could be restored then it's a not very fast, short legged, visual range only AIM-9 shooter so what the fuck would the mission for that be?
If the Red Arrows have to exist, which they apparently do, then the cynical/efficient move would be to transfer the 'Red Arrows' identity to 4 and 25(F) at Valley, paint all the training jets red and do a much reduced program of much reduced displays staffed by the Hawk QFIs. Just while we all wait for M346.
If they aren't careful it might start add up to some serious money....
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the version of the bill that was passed on Tuesday by the Senate could add $3.3tn (£2.4tn) to the US national deficit over the next 10 years. That compares with $2.8tn that could be added by the earlier version that was narrowly passed by the House.
On Monday a member of my family was stranded at Edinburgh station for a number of hours along with a huge number of other people, and today I was stranded at New Street station for about 3 hours. Thousands of other people are still stuck there now, most likely. The infrastructure of this country doesn't appear to be able to cope with a couple of days of hot weather.
Same down south. As an ex-infrastructure guy, every developing country races to improve it's infrastructure as it's the key to economic prosperity. We seem to think that it doesn't need that much attention whereas it's lack of refurbishment/replacement is exactly what is holding us back.
On that subject, I'd go for Cooper for CofE as you'll get two for the price of one.
On Monday a member of my family was stranded at Edinburgh station for a number of hours along with a huge number of other people, and today I was stranded at New Street station for about 3 hours. Thousands of other people are still stuck there now, most likely. The infrastructure of this country doesn't appear to be able to cope with a couple of days of hot weather.
Edinburgh was because of a suicide on the track
Sad. Hope the driver gets as much help as he/she needs.
Hard to say. The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.
I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?
Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.
Hard to say. The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.
I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?
Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.
Blair had a similar one in 1997 - 47 backbenchers rebelling against welfare reforms and another 100 abstaining, including two resignations.
Yes, and on Labour economic steriods... We have torn up our retirement plans to relocate somewhere else in the UK and are now viewing at looking moving abroad.
Hard to say. The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.
I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?
Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.
Blair had a similar one in 1997 - 47 backbenchers rebelling against welfare reforms and another 100 abstaining, including two resignations.
..Because of Labour's large majority in the House of Commons, the Government managed to win all votes comfortably.
Labour's chief whip, Nick Brown, will now start the process of interviewing the rebels face to face. Observers say that in effect he will be giving them the yellow card and warning them that any further disobedience will not be tolerated...
Good recall, but not really comparable, other than the subject of the revolt, as that detail makes obvious.
BRITAIN will be “fat free” within a decade, paving the way for tax cuts worth billions of pounds, Wes Streeting declared yesterday.
I'm not sure that the political line - weight loss jabs on the NHS will save money. And a bit of overreach.
Far better to get the buggers to start walking around (yes, there are exceptions) in their daily lives for short journeys. And opening up the public footpath network to make it easier to do. And .... I won't repeat the rest here .
Incidentally, I saw that one of my local primary schools has just had some "don't park on the corners of the junctions, you dangerous idiots" traffic regs introduced to stop parents clogging it up with their cars. 99% of the entire residential catchment area is within easy walking distance (ie 10 minutes), and most of it far less, with easy to use footpaths everywhere (except for wheelchairs).
Just 1-2 more people in each Local Highways Authority would make a huge difference to this.
My (broken record - sorry) photo today is a barrier which blocks one of the routes I looked at last week where I met a dozen parents walking their kids to school within 2 minutes. I think I can get rid of this one:
Hard to say. The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.
I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?
Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.
Blair had a similar one in 1997 - 47 backbenchers rebelling against welfare reforms and another 100 abstaining, including two resignations.
..Because of Labour's large majority in the House of Commons, the Government managed to win all votes comfortably.
Labour's chief whip, Nick Brown, will now start the process of interviewing the rebels face to face. Observers say that in effect he will be giving them the yellow card and warning them that any further disobedience will not be tolerated...
Good recall, but not really comparable, other than the subject of the revolt, as that detail makes obvious.
Comparable in size, and in result. Both were won comfortably. Indeed, the key difference numerically is arguably that Blair was helped by the Conservatives in that vote which in theory at least should have been more damaging to him.
The real difference I think is that Blair was surfing a wave of popular enthusiasm at the time and also an economic crest. This gave him the backing of the media when things were not running smoothly. Starmer isn't - and doesn't.
Hard to say. The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.
I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?
Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.
If you win with the Ming Vase, you're stuck and have to keep carrying it.
Hard to say. The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.
I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?
Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.
If you win with the Ming Vase, you're stuck and have to keep carrying it.
Too late, Starmer tripped and its smashed into a million pieces. Now need to sit there with a tube of super glue and see if he can put it back together.
My (broken record - sorry) photo today is a barrier which blocks one of the routes I looked at last week where I met a dozen parents walking their kids to school within 2 minutes. I think I can get rid of this one:
Comments
@BarackObama
More than 16 million Americans are at risk of losing their health care because Republicans in Congress are rushing to pass a bill that would cut federal funding for Medicaid and weaken the Affordable Care Act.
If the House passes this bill, it will increase costs and hurt working class families for generations to come. Call your representative today and tell them to vote no on this bill.
https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1940500920959488540
Steppin’ Razor she should be.
It was appallingly badly executed and didn’t survive contact with the real world. But wasn’t “obviously mad”.
Although, IIRC, you have some personal history with HIPS so may not be unbiased
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1940505089908920370
Every week you can watch arch-remoaner Hugo Rifkind and a team of lefties build Starmer up as a slick operator and laugh at what they perceive as Kemi's shiteness.
This is what they say this week:
https://www.youtube.com/live/a94xC5Oa1xc?si=-q6yjJ769-7Z8Esf&t=34m30s
"I can see how Kemi Badenoch could have done that differently - I don't think she could have done it better" (Hugo)
"Impeccable" (Patrick Macguire)
"It slightly pains me to say it but Kemi Badenoch did rise to the occasion" (Ed Millibands former PMQs coach)
Kemi did actually reserve her fire (quite rightly) for Starmer, and called Reeves a human shield for his incompetence. It wasn't Kemi's question that upset Reeves it was Starmer's answer.
That Rachel Reeves has been out of her depth is clear, yet there was tangible pity for her across the house as she wept during Sir Keir’s answers, having looked as if she’d been crying before. With the Chancellor sitting right next to him, tears visible on her cheeks, the Prime Minister blithely drove the knife in. Sir Keir refused to guarantee her position. It was like the ending of Of Mice and Men.
Behind the Speaker’s chair, a group of female Labour MPs looked over with real concern at the Chancellor. Behind the PM’s back, his deputy looked over with real hatred at the Prime Minister. I have attended many PMQs over the years and this one had the most uncomfortable atmosphere by a country mile.
My quota today: University of California racial classifications. America's a funny place.
Which may sound like chutzpah. But the stock of everyone else in this regard has fallen so far in the past 12 months that the Tories look like models of fiscal probity by comparison.
But doesn't that mean there is a problem with your statement. Because if you accept I have principles, then why not the others who have also joined? Why am I unique? Political parties are just a collection of like minded individuals. And if we were cynical, why would we join the LDs. That would seem to be an idiotic thing to do if that were our motives. We could gain power more easily by taking an easier route.
Nobody joins the LDs to simply gain power.
Shocked. Completely shocked!
Similar to a man on trial for killing his parents appealing for mercy on the grounds of being an orphan.
I’ve been to the cricket with my dad. And we won.
For an IMF programme to have any effect at all, it would have to be a decent size, say 10% of our GDP, or about £250 billion. We might have to borrow more - Ireland borrowed about 15% of its GDP in 2010 from the Fund and 20% from others. But let's stick with 10%. The biggest ever loan in the IMF's history, in 2018, was to Argentina and that was $57 billion, or about a fifth of what we'd need. Even that caused them some consternation at the time.
The IMF's current total loanable funds are around $900 billion, of which about $200 billion is already loaned out. So we'd need to borrow about half their remaining funds for a minimal sized loan. There is no way the IMF (basically the Americans, EU and Chinese) would be comfortable with lending such a huge amount to one borrower whose woes are entirely the fault of its lazy and entitled political class and electorate, and which is not facing an imminent bond market crash (as we print our own currency, we can't) as doing so would mean that its ability to help genuinely needy borrowers would be greatly diminished.
The IMF could of course ask its creditors to increase its assets. Would the taxpayers of the United States, China and the EU, which is who we're essentially talking about, be willing to ask their taxpayers to subsidise ours? Would a snowball last ten seconds in hell? Especially as they all have their own economic problems, some of them even worse than ours: the Japanese and Italians are much more indebted, France and the US are chronically fiscally incontinent, the Chinese debt bubble is frightening and they are much poorer, and the Germans don't like the idea of bailing anyone out ever. All except maybe the Krauts are quaking at the idea of higher interest rates.
So the IMF is a red herring, either as a getout for our lazy political class to pretend to be forced to implement the reforms they know are needed, or as a measure on its own merits to improve our economic performance.
She’ll now be Chancellor for a long time to come.
We all know how long SKS’s positions last, so I wonder if he’ll regret saying that in a few weeks’ time like his other pronouncements?
Listening to him, you just realise his credibility is shot. He desperately needs a few successes to turn the page.
In 2024 it went up slightly
2019 and 2017 support fell during the campaign
2015 broadly flat
But time will tell and ive been wrong before!
And I noticed your little remark about the people who defend this country. WTF has happened to our medical profession? How's the investigation into Mary McCarthy going.
Kemi meanwhile is built on ideological positions and principles. Things will shift quite quickly now to put the Conservatives on top of the polling.
But beyond the legalistic stuff about House of Lords
stuffingreform, he hasn't actually thought hard about how to achieve the sort of things a democrat socialist would want....beyond knowing full on Magic Grandpa a) won't work be allowed by the markets and b) that will scare the horses too much.And of course, when you actually get their, things move so fast, it is very hard to find time to start doing the planning.
Paramount bends to Trump: 5 takeaways on ’60 Minutes’ settlement
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5382044-paramount-trump-lawsuit-cbs-news-60-minutes-harris-interview-fcc-skydance-merger/
They should simply have Pressdramed him.
By contrast, in 2010, the Tories knew there would need to be austerity so they spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that and their actions were consistent.
Labour's big mistake was to give the impression that all it needed was a change of Government to magically fix everything and so the public aren't prepared to make sacrifices. If they'd laid the groundwork then maybe people would grumble but be more willing to suck it up. So now we are headed for a budget where I don't think the public realise how bad the finances are, and so whatever Lab do it is likely to go down very very badly.
'What i will say is she has done an excellent job'
Not 'is doing an excellent job'
Still sounds a bit 'leaving do speech'
We must rebuild our country. It will not be easy. Not only because there is no quick fix to the mess the Conservatives have made. But also, because their failures have sapped our collective confidence that Britain can still achieve great things.
😎
Compare it with the Conservative manifesto in 1979 which outlines a serious critique of the status quo and a strategy to change the direction of the country:
http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1979/1979-conservative-manifesto.shtml
Figma makes $220m a year in revenue
Figma spends $110m a year on AWS
The thing I find really odd is that AWS is incredibly valuable to Amazong, but they have a reputation of treating their employees who on work on the system not much better than your average delivery driver e.g. you need to make 4 years to really get a big payout in share options but they consistently sack a big proportion of employees after 2-3 years.
The ROCAF's Thunder Tigers aerobatic team flew both the F-5A and the F-5E. For years, the Thunder Tigers flew the F-86 Sabre before transitioning to the Freedom Fighter in 1967, and then to the Tiger II in 1975.
Historically, thanks to not being super friendly with their cross-strait neighbor, the ROCAF couldn't afford to take fighters from its order of battle for use with aerobatic teams, so the Thunder Tigers' aircraft, unlike those flown by aerobatic teams of most air forces, remained combat capable with their guns, radars, and fire control systems intact.
Additionally, Thunder Tiger pilots maintained combat readiness and participated in the combat air patrol missions that "line" units performed..
https://x.com/taiwaneseprick/status/1940255110392684778
Commuter who lost arm and leg ‘contributed to her own injuries’ according to TfL’s High Court defence"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sarah-de-lagarde-tfl-tube-fall-northern-line-high-barnet-b1235846.html
When the rule of law breaks down it’s understand (if not admirable) that individual people and organisations bend
Ah here we go..... edit
Killingworth (North Tyneside) Council By-Election Result:
➡️ RFM: 38.5% (New)
🌹 LAB: 31.9% (-22.7)
🌳 CON: 21.4% (-3.5)
🌍 GRN: 4.2% (-16.3)
🔶 LDM: 4.0% (New)
Reform GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2024.
Wasn't this what was Lord Darzi proposed 20 years ago?
Longbenton & Benton (North Tyneside) Council By-Election Result:
🌹 LAB: 39.6% (-16.8)
➡️ RFM: 32.3% (+19.3)
🌍 GRN: 13.9% (-7.8)
🔶 LDM: 9.8% (New)
🌳 CON: 4.4% (New)
No TUSC (-9.0) as previous.
Labour HOLD.
Changes w/ 2024.
Mystic GIN strikes again!
Ed Milliband may end up as a Rishi type figure coming in at the end to soak up the defeat.
Remember, Labour are ending the chaos! 😂
You will only be able to write off 90% of your loses.
Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, and Jony Cink, 24, both of no fixed abode, and Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 35, and Lewie Chiaramello, 22, both from London, will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court later on Thursday.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35671855/wes-streeting-more-access-fab-jabs-economy/
BRITAIN will be “fat free” within a decade, paving the way for tax cuts worth billions of pounds, Wes Streeting declared yesterday.
The big bullshit bill undermines property rights for those that do not buy in to the MAGA world view. All it would take now is a big liquidity call, like the impact of a serious Japanese earthquake and investors could be discounting US assets by 20-30% in very short order. Trump is laying the seeds of his own destruction, but it is not clear that once confidence in the integrity of American business is lost, it can be recovered.
Boeing, for example, has been accused of a corrupt relationship with the FAA and is now increasingly facing competition, not just from Airbus, but new competition from around the world. Trust, once lost, may never be recovered. The fall of the American century may be a whole lot closer than we think.
All the more reason for the UK to rethink our own strategic dependence on the US and take a hard nosed and long term view of our own interests. Farage may want a closer alignment with the US, but the equivocal relationship of Trump with Putin is a clear and present danger to our own national interests.
Nor would they give a damn for disabled people under the current leadership. If they gave a damn we would have seen 101 little injustices and inconsistencies resolved over the last 15 years, and little or nothing has happened.
The most recent prominent example was ticket office closure to save some money, when disabled groups were not consulted and they attempted to pass it off as an initiative of Network Rail. Equally, last time they did Reform around Work Capacity Assessment they introduced a massive bureaucracy run by low skilled staff - anyone who knows those who have been through the system is aware of that.
This is one reason I left the Conservative Party, and I see no reason why I would go back whilst it is run by cynical, headless chickens.
I think that all the Western leaders are aware of this to different degrees - Trump is a malignant narcissist on a policy journey where his criteria is enriching and glorifying himself. Starmer is one of the most aware, as we are one of the countries most tightly meshed in.
In general I think they are playing with two goals in mind:
1 - Managing Trump and the USA relationship, where one of the aims is strategic autonomy ie making the USA as irrelevant as possible.
2 - Keeping an eye on what of the USA and the USA relationship may be salvageable post-Trump.
IMO the American Century has already gone, subject to things I cannot foresee; it is a dead man walking. Trump has already burnt down the political capital that maintained it, soft capital (USAID, VOA and the rest), and is busily burning down the USA as a constitutional republic, and the international order that supported it including the rule of international law.
In these circumstances, it seems to me that the place of Europe is first and foremost to stand for rule of law, in whatever set of evolved institutions we need to place it. We can do that within Europe, and build wider influence where we can.
Is that Brexit related, or "USA interests buying up the UK" related?
https://globalbusiness.org/foreign-direct-investment-in-the-united-states-2024/
It's the one chance you have to discuss ticketing, train and service problems with a member of staff who has access to the systems - the guards dont.
If the Red Arrows have to exist, which they apparently do, then the cynical/efficient move would be to transfer the 'Red Arrows' identity to 4 and 25(F) at Valley, paint all the training jets red and do a much reduced program of much reduced displays staffed by the Hawk QFIs. Just while we all wait for M346.
Or, they think it does.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the version of the bill that was passed on Tuesday by the Senate could add $3.3tn (£2.4tn) to the US national deficit over the next 10 years. That compares with $2.8tn that could be added by the earlier version that was narrowly passed by the House.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20rrxjnx4lo
On that subject, I'd go for Cooper for CofE as you'll get two for the price of one.
The comparison with Prescott is given as an argument against her ever getting the top job, but that ignores the obvious massive gulf between Blair and Starmer.
I don't think we've ever had a PM with a very large majority suffering such a rebellion from their party, so early into their term ?
Peel was long into his term when repeal of the Corn Laws trashed his majority, and his party. And it's hard to see Starmer being admired by history for this episode.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/38656.stm
Labour's chief whip, Nick Brown, will now start the process of interviewing the rebels face to face. Observers say that in effect he will be giving them the yellow card and warning them that any further disobedience will not be tolerated...
Good recall, but not really comparable, other than the subject of the revolt, as that detail makes obvious.
Far better to get the buggers to start walking around (yes, there are exceptions) in their daily lives for short journeys. And opening up the public footpath network to make it easier to do. And .... I won't repeat the rest here
Incidentally, I saw that one of my local primary schools has just had some "don't park on the corners of the junctions, you dangerous idiots" traffic regs introduced to stop parents clogging it up with their cars. 99% of the entire residential catchment area is within easy walking distance (ie 10 minutes), and most of it far less, with easy to use footpaths everywhere (except for wheelchairs).
Just 1-2 more people in each Local Highways Authority would make a huge difference to this.
My (broken record - sorry) photo today is a barrier which blocks one of the routes I looked at last week where I met a dozen parents walking their kids to school within 2 minutes. I think I can get rid of this one:
The real difference I think is that Blair was surfing a wave of popular enthusiasm at the time and also an economic crest. This gave him the backing of the media when things were not running smoothly. Starmer isn't - and doesn't.