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.
I'm not disabled in the way @Benpointer (for example) is; Type I D has a likely long-term impact - I may be unable to drive (eyes) or not maintain good control (which I do) and end up with a peg-leg like Long John Silver *; a number of risks (eg heart attacks) increase by 4 or 5x without "good" control. But equally my leukemia is of a "comes out of remission every X years" type, and at that point I would be severely impacted for a period possibly of months.
One of the things we have right in this country is that we have a principle of basing support on functional abilities, so correctly not all disabled people get PIP. One thing that we get in consequence is that the number of "disabled" people is different to the number eligible for various benefits. And that causes statements questioning the numbers.
A further impact is the silliness around "disabled MPs", and lobby groups and media demanding that why are there only X MPs, when "23% of the population are disabled". If counted the same way, there are 10-15% of MPs who would perhaps be "disabled" not 5, or 6, or 9. I have not done the data work yet to get close to a number of "disabled MPs" for this Parliament, but it is something around 50-100.
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.
Labour were worried they wouldn't win, so didn't feel they could say -> there will have to be tax rises for instance. I don't think they promised they'd magically fix everything - but they let people assume that rather than forcing them to confront hard truths at the election time.
As it happened, Labour won a very narrow landslide. Possible that the 'groundwork' might have cost them a majority.
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.
I think perhaps MPs today are a bit more empowered to be unruly. They're not looking for a job for life, because it isn't. Theyre perhaps more motivated by ideology... So they feel more free to say no to leadership.
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:
Will you be using an angle grinder or a spanner?
I'll be using Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 ("wilful obstruction of a highway") as it is a Public Footpath, which will make it easier, with a reference to the litigation risk for the Council under the Equality Act 2010, and maybe even the Public Sector Equality Duty.
If nothing happens I will be using S130A of the HWA 1980 ("Section 130A: Requiring the highway authority to act on an obstructed path"), where I serve "Form 1" on the Chief Executive. If nothing happens the process continues ending up in serving a court order. S130A gives lawful users the use of the full width of the footpath as interpreted by case law, so they should not have a chance.
Under EA2010 it has to be a disabled person who has been discriminated against who takes action (so I would need a "litigation friend" to be discriminated against when we go for a walk), but an A-Barrier like that one is an open and shut case and the Council would usually cave in and offer £3-4k compensation after the Letter Before Action.
It's far cheaper for them just to remove the illegal barrier.
My punt is that it will be gone by the next school year.
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.
Labour were worried they wouldn't win, so didn't feel they could say -> there will have to be tax rises for instance. I don't think they promised they'd magically fix everything - but they let people assume that rather than forcing them to confront hard truths at the election time.
As it happened, Labour won a very narrow landslide. Possible that the 'groundwork' might have cost them a majority.
And, it's one they can't really dine on.
A landslide is no good if you have no popular support for your platform and your MPs don't back it, even if you had every MP in the house.
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:
Will you be using an angle grinder or a spanner?
I'll be using Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 ("wilful obstruction of a highway") as it is a Public Footpath, which will make it easier, with a reference to the litigation risk for the Council under the Equality Act 2010, and maybe even the Public Sector Equality Duty.
If nothing happens I will be using S130A of the HWA 1980 ("Section 130A: Requiring the highway authority to act on an obstructed path"), where I serve "Form 1" on the Chief Executive. If nothing happens the process continues ending up in serving a court order. S130A gives lawful users the use of the full width of the footpath as interpreted by case law, so they should not have a chance.
Under EA2010 it has to be a disabled person who has been discriminated against who takes action (so I would need a "litigation friend" to be discriminated against when we go for a walk), but an A-Barrier like that one is an open and shut case and the Council would usually cave in and offer £3-4k compensation after the Letter Before Action.
It's far cheaper for them just to remove the illegal barrier.
My punt is that it will be gone by the next school year.
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.
That's the elephant in the room here.
Blair could splash a certain amount of cash, because his fiscal inheritance from Major was pretty good.
Cameron could get away with a certain amount of squeezing spending, because the condition of the state was pretty solid.
Starmer has the much harder position of having taken over a state where the finances and estate are both awful. All the talk of Ming vases (which is fair enough) has to engage with the reality that nice Mr Sunak and good Mr Hunt left a terrible inheritance, and a fair bit of it was deliberate setting of political traps.
"A better politician would be able to untangle the knot better" may be true, though I'm not convinced it's completely true. But when it's said from the peanut gallery by those responsible for the mess in the first place, it's not classy behaviour.
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:
Will you be using an angle grinder or a spanner?
I'll be using Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 ("wilful obstruction of a highway") as it is a Public Footpath, which will make it easier, with a reference to the litigation risk for the Council under the Equality Act 2010, and maybe even the Public Sector Equality Duty.
If nothing happens I will be using S130A of the HWA 1980 ("Section 130A: Requiring the highway authority to act on an obstructed path"), where I serve "Form 1" on the Chief Executive. If nothing happens the process continues ending up in serving a court order. S130A gives lawful users the use of the full width of the footpath as interpreted by case law, so they should not have a chance.
Under EA2010 it has to be a disabled person who has been discriminated against who takes action (so I would need a "litigation friend" to be discriminated against when we go for a walk), but an A-Barrier like that one is an open and shut case and the Council would usually cave in and offer £3-4k compensation after the Letter Before Action.
It's far cheaper for them just to remove the illegal barrier.
My punt is that it will be gone by the next school year.
A spanner would be easier.
IMO no - a spanner will not help fix the real underlying problem, which is in the culture and mindset of the Local Highways Authority.
New neighbourhood health services, open 12 hours a day, six day days a week, will be launched across the country offering tests, post-operation care, nursing and mental health treatment
To "bring back the family doctor" system, thousands more GPs will be trained
There will also be a push for GPs to lean on artificial intelligence to take notes while other technology will be used to speed up answering calls to surgeries
Newly qualified dentists will need to practise in the NHS for a minimum period - the government has indicated they intend this to be three years
New neighbourhood health services, open 12 hours a day, six day days a week, will be launched across the country offering tests, post-operation care, nursing and mental health treatment
To "bring back the family doctor" system, thousands more GPs will be trained
There will also be a push for GPs to lean on artificial intelligence to take notes while other technology will be used to speed up answering calls to surgeries
This isn't exactly hard. You just switch on Co-Pilot.
New neighbourhood health services, open 12 hours a day, six day days a week, will be launched across the country offering tests, post-operation care, nursing and mental health treatment
To "bring back the family doctor" system, thousands more GPs will be trained
There will also be a push for GPs to lean on artificial intelligence to take notes while other technology will be used to speed up answering calls to surgeries
Newly qualified dentists will need to practise in the NHS for a minimum period - the government has indicated they intend this to be three years
Lord Darzi proposed this 20 years ago. I can't remember, why didn't it happen?
3 years sounds too modest to me. 10,000 practice hours perhaps would be better, or 5 or 10 years. Maybe with an extra qualification ot set of letters as one thing obtained at the end, which would be a public recognition of a depth of experience.
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.
That's the elephant in the room here.
Blair could splash a certain amount of cash, because his fiscal inheritance from Major was pretty good.
Cameron could get away with a certain amount of squeezing spending, because the condition of the state was pretty solid.
Starmer has the much harder position of having taken over a state where the finances and estate are both awful. All the talk of Ming vases (which is fair enough) has to engage with the reality that nice Mr Sunak and good Mr Hunt left a terrible inheritance, and a fair bit of it was deliberate setting of political traps.
"A better politician would be able to untangle the knot better" may be true, though I'm not convinced it's completely true. But when it's said from the peanut gallery by those responsible for the mess in the first place, it's not classy behaviour.
Oh FFS
Sunak and Hunt the evil twins ? In your dreams.
The reason Starmer is in the shit is he had no plan for government, doesnt understand wealth creation and growth and his chancellor wrecked economic confidence by investing a black hole and taxing the ass off voters.
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.
That's the elephant in the room here.
Blair could splash a certain amount of cash, because his fiscal inheritance from Major was pretty good.
Cameron could get away with a certain amount of squeezing spending, because the condition of the state was pretty solid.
Starmer has the much harder position of having taken over a state where the finances and estate are both awful. All the talk of Ming vases (which is fair enough) has to engage with the reality that nice Mr Sunak and good Mr Hunt left a terrible inheritance, and a fair bit of it was deliberate setting of political traps.
"A better politician would be able to untangle the knot better" may be true, though I'm not convinced it's completely true. But when it's said from the peanut gallery by those responsible for the mess in the first place, it's not classy behaviour.
No party was honest about the state of the national finances, nor realistic with their tax and spend plans, at the last election. It was a political fiction, but not a sustainable one to keep ignoring, hence the hammering that both Labour and Tories are getting in the polls now.
The public appetite for snake oil salesmen remains strong, hence Reforms polling, though their pledges are even more ludicrous.
We aren't the only country struggling with this, indeed slow growth, bloated welfare and pensions budgets, and rapidly ageing population dempgraphics are putting similar strains on every developed country. Not that that helps.
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:
Can I play devil's advocate on that one?
Whilst I hate that sort of barrier, the path is unavoidably narrow between wall and fence, and there does appear to be a sharpish bend immediately afterwards, with no sighting. A cyclist could easily go at speed around that bend without knowing what is beyond it. The barrier at least stops cyclists from going too fast.
As ever, much depends on the exact situation on the ground...
Sadly, infrastructure often needs to be designed not for the reasonable user, but for the stupid ones as well.
Yes, but far worse for the UK economy because she will think she can actually try to sell her first budget to the electorate and the markets while Truss hid behind the door of No10 along with her chancellor next door when they delivered their own bombshell budget. A huge error, and no wonder the markets reacted the way they did! But without Labour having the get of jail card to remove Rayner as swiftly in their leadership rules as the Conservatives did with Truss, and more importantly without the same panicked spine the Conservative backbenchers found really quickly towards the end of the last Parliament I think the current Labour Parliamentary party is going to quickly take us to the Corbynista economics we swerved in 2017 & 2019. Take your seats, fasten your seatbelts and set them to brace...
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.
I'm not disabled in the way @Benpointer (for example) is; Type I D has a likely long-term impact - I may be unable to drive (eyes) or not maintain good control (which I do) and end up with a peg-leg like Long John Silver *; a number of risks (eg heart attacks) increase by 4 or 5x without "good" control. But equally my leukemia is of a "comes out of remission every X years" type, and at that point I would be severely impacted for a period possibly of months.
One of the things we have right in this country is that we have a principle of basing support on functional abilities, so correctly not all disabled people get PIP. One thing that we get in consequence is that the number of "disabled" people is different to the number eligible for various benefits. And that causes statements questioning the numbers.
A further impact is the silliness around "disabled MPs", and lobby groups and media demanding that why are there only X MPs, when "23% of the population are disabled". If counted the same way, there are 10-15% of MPs who would perhaps be "disabled" not 5, or 6, or 9. I have not done the data work yet to get close to a number of "disabled MPs" for this Parliament, but it is something around 50-100.
I agree with that, but 'functional abilities' issues are not all the same. When I was younger I had significant problems with my ankles, and periodic mobility issues. At times I would be fine; at others I would be in intense pain. Sometimes I would go for seven mile walks along the Regent Canal, even when I was in pain, because it did me good mentally to be fighting the *?*!***&^ing pain.
So there were times when I would have been classed as disabled; times when I was fine, and times when I was disabled but did able-bodied things because I fought through the pain. But I could not always do that.
Whether I was 'disabled' or not would depend on how you classify the pain I was in (it was limiting), and, most importantly, when I was assessed.
From memory, I only ever got three 'advantages' because of my issue: *) A parking slot on uni campus; *) In first year, I got moved form the ninth floor in my halls, to the ground floor, because I was on crutches and the lift was out. *) For my second year, I got given a halls room in a residence beside the uni.
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:
Can I play devil's advocate on that one?
Whilst I hate that sort of barrier, the path is unavoidably narrow between wall and fence, and there does appear to be a sharpish bend immediately afterwards, with no sighting. A cyclist could easily go at speed around that bend without knowing what is beyond it. The barrier at least stops cyclists from going too fast.
As ever, much depends on the exact situation on the ground...
Sadly, infrastructure often needs to be designed not for the reasonable user, but for the stupid ones as well.
It also needs to be designed to protect the public against reckless cyclists
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...
You skipped over this bit: ..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...
Any "observers" saying that today would invite derisive laughter.
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.
Labour were worried they wouldn't win, so didn't feel they could say -> there will have to be tax rises for instance. I don't think they promised they'd magically fix everything - but they let people assume that rather than forcing them to confront hard truths at the election time.
As it happened, Labour won a very narrow landslide. Possible that the 'groundwork' might have cost them a majority.
And, it's one they can't really dine on.
A landslide is no good if you have no popular support for your platform and your MPs don't back it, even if you had every MP in the house.
I think it quite likely that Reeves and Starmer would have got away with raising income tax in their first budget. While a blatant breach of campaign promises, it would have caused less fuss than the WFA cut, and wouldn't have had to be reversed. It might even have left them with the political capital to pick the triple lock.
As it is, the government is going to spend the next few years bumping up against a self imposed lack of fiscal headroom, which makes every minor financial surprise into a crisis.
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:
Can I play devil's advocate on that one?
Whilst I hate that sort of barrier, the path is unavoidably narrow between wall and fence, and there does appear to be a sharpish bend immediately afterwards, with no sighting. A cyclist could easily go at speed around that bend without knowing what is beyond it. The barrier at least stops cyclists from going too fast.
As ever, much depends on the exact situation on the ground...
Sadly, infrastructure often needs to be designed not for the reasonable user, but for the stupid ones as well.
You make an excellent point @JosiasJessop , but they could have used a different barrier which didn't stop wheelchairs eg spring loaded gate which are common enough. I say that without knowing if the width is enough to fit one and still get a wheelchair through.
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:
Can I play devil's advocate on that one?
Whilst I hate that sort of barrier, the path is unavoidably narrow between wall and fence, and there does appear to be a sharpish bend immediately afterwards, with no sighting. A cyclist could easily go at speed around that bend without knowing what is beyond it. The barrier at least stops cyclists from going too fast.
As ever, much depends on the exact situation on the ground...
Sadly, infrastructure often needs to be designed not for the reasonable user, but for the stupid ones as well.
It's a good question, and it is always good to debate these details - it helps inform the community even if they disagree.
On this one there are actually fairly decent sightlines there, and the width of the path is around 1.5m, which is quite suitable eg for an adult taking a child to school or a blind person with a Guide Dog, mobility scooter, pram, wheelchair etc.
It's a Public Footpath not a bridleway or a PROW - no access for cyclists allowed. Since there is no ASB problem in the whole area, and has basically never been one, and lawful users take priority over unlawful obstructions, it's clear cut both legally and from a positive benefit pov.
I'm prioritising it because it restricts a safe walking route to school. The other end of it is here, right next to the zebra crossing where the lollipop lady stands. That one is actually quite comfortable.
I have so many barriers here that I am prioritising important routes and obvious needs. Here for example, is a side entrance to the Rec where the path shown here is only 75-90cm wide between fences for 50m, so even a basic wheelchair is very difficult. It has a horrid kissing gate / 1.4m high croquet hoop combo at the other end which is worse than an A-barrier and I have to turn sideways or do a limbo dance.
I'm leaving that because the inherent width of the path removes any benefit, even though it also meant that whoever put it there in 198x was a gormless twat and added nothing.
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.
I'm not disabled in the way @Benpointer (for example) is; Type I D has a likely long-term impact - I may be unable to drive (eyes) or not maintain good control (which I do) and end up with a peg-leg like Long John Silver *; a number of risks (eg heart attacks) increase by 4 or 5x without "good" control. But equally my leukemia is of a "comes out of remission every X years" type, and at that point I would be severely impacted for a period possibly of months.
One of the things we have right in this country is that we have a principle of basing support on functional abilities, so correctly not all disabled people get PIP. One thing that we get in consequence is that the number of "disabled" people is different to the number eligible for various benefits. And that causes statements questioning the numbers.
A further impact is the silliness around "disabled MPs", and lobby groups and media demanding that why are there only X MPs, when "23% of the population are disabled". If counted the same way, there are 10-15% of MPs who would perhaps be "disabled" not 5, or 6, or 9. I have not done the data work yet to get close to a number of "disabled MPs" for this Parliament, but it is something around 50-100.
I agree with that, but 'functional abilities' issues are not all the same. When I was younger I had significant problems with my ankles, and periodic mobility issues. At times I would be fine; at others I would be in intense pain. Sometimes I would go for seven mile walks along the Regent Canal, even when I was in pain, because it did me good mentally to be fighting the *?*!***&^ing pain.
So there were times when I would have been classed as disabled; times when I was fine, and times when I was disabled but did able-bodied things because I fought through the pain. But I could not always do that.
Whether I was 'disabled' or not would depend on how you classify the pain I was in (it was limiting), and, most importantly, when I was assessed.
From memory, I only ever got three 'advantages' because of my issue: *) A parking slot on uni campus; *) In first year, I got moved form the ninth floor in my halls, to the ground floor, because I was on crutches and the lift was out. *) For my second year, I got given a halls room in a residence beside the uni.
Agree - that's why it's tricky, and needs appropriate systems and appropriately skilled staff.
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:
Can I play devil's advocate on that one?
Whilst I hate that sort of barrier, the path is unavoidably narrow between wall and fence, and there does appear to be a sharpish bend immediately afterwards, with no sighting. A cyclist could easily go at speed around that bend without knowing what is beyond it. The barrier at least stops cyclists from going too fast.
As ever, much depends on the exact situation on the ground...
Sadly, infrastructure often needs to be designed not for the reasonable user, but for the stupid ones as well.
You make an excellent point @JosiasJessop , but they could have used a different barrier which didn't stop wheelchairs eg spring loaded gate which are common enough. I say that without knowing if the width is enough to fit one and still get a wheelchair through.
Disabled peoples' organisations and UK official Government Guidance do not consider 'spring loaded gates' to be accessible, and disabled organisations consider Radar Gates to be even worse (they get stiff and rusty, and then people can't get them open and may be stuck at the far end of a 1 mile or 5 mile route). I have one anti-wheelchair in Mansfield I am targeting which has a 1km downhill route through a Green Flag nature reserve, which has the far end blocked by one of these A-barriers.
That's one reason why "lived experience", as opposed to assumptions made by the rest of us, is so important.
The philosophy in UK law for 30-40 years has been that disabled people are part of "us", who fully participate in society, and we design society to reflect that. They are not "them" on whose behalf we make decisions which we then impose.
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:
Can I play devil's advocate on that one?
Whilst I hate that sort of barrier, the path is unavoidably narrow between wall and fence, and there does appear to be a sharpish bend immediately afterwards, with no sighting. A cyclist could easily go at speed around that bend without knowing what is beyond it. The barrier at least stops cyclists from going too fast.
As ever, much depends on the exact situation on the ground...
Sadly, infrastructure often needs to be designed not for the reasonable user, but for the stupid ones as well.
It also needs to be designed to protect the public against reckless cyclists
IMO that's a fallacious argument for a number of reasons:
1 - It assumes the existence of reckless cyclists. Basically there aren't any in that area. That is one minor culture war I am fighting locally - against the folk myth about ASB created by poor police advice in the 1970s 1980s and 1990s when they believed in cutting up estates, rather than having them made safer by encouraging public use. These myths are crazily persistent - new residents can pick it up by osmosis.
2 - It's a Public Right of Way. The law is that lawful users cannot be restricted, and that ASB is a matter for the police - not for members of the public to be denied access to the public sphere.
3 - Even in Benthamite terms the argument fails - there is perhaps one cyclist a week using it, and to avoid the risk for the tiny % who would cycle "recklessly" the proposal is that a significant chunk of the community be locked out from their lawful use of a public footpath.
4 - And it's a Public Footpath, so it is not "designed" - it just exists. That one was there when I went to that school in the 1970s, and is on Victorian Ordnance survey maps. It may well be that the houses either side have nicked bits of the Commons by pushing their fences.
If it were me I would have the County Council CPO 2m more on the S Side to make the path as useable as the ones on the estate behind it, which are beautiful. The garden that side is so generous they would not miss it. Then it could be upgraded to a shared path with no problems, and the kids could cycle or scoot to school that way. But then they may go Nimby.
They have all the powers to do it already, and that is the future of where our active travel networks need partly to come from; we just need a more communitarian set of values and some vision.
Councils are also required to have a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, an LCWIP. But these have mainly been casualties of the gutting of local government.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce375w2z6yyo
One of the things we have right in this country is that we have a principle of basing support on functional abilities, so correctly not all disabled people get PIP. One thing that we get in consequence is that the number of "disabled" people is different to the number eligible for various benefits. And that causes statements questioning the numbers.
A further impact is the silliness around "disabled MPs", and lobby groups and media demanding that why are there only X MPs, when "23% of the population are disabled". If counted the same way, there are 10-15% of MPs who would perhaps be "disabled" not 5, or 6, or 9. I have not done the data work yet to get close to a number of "disabled MPs" for this Parliament, but it is something around 50-100.
As it happened, Labour won a very narrow landslide. Possible that the 'groundwork' might have cost them a majority.
If nothing happens I will be using S130A of the HWA 1980 ("Section 130A: Requiring the highway authority to act on an obstructed path"), where I serve "Form 1" on the Chief Executive. If nothing happens the process continues ending up in serving a court order. S130A gives lawful users the use of the full width of the footpath as interpreted by case law, so they should not have a chance.
Under EA2010 it has to be a disabled person who has been discriminated against who takes action (so I would need a "litigation friend" to be discriminated against when we go for a walk), but an A-Barrier like that one is an open and shut case and the Council would usually cave in and offer £3-4k compensation after the Letter Before Action.
It's far cheaper for them just to remove the illegal barrier.
My punt is that it will be gone by the next school year.
A landslide is no good if you have no popular support for your platform and your MPs don't back it, even if you had every MP in the house.
Blair could splash a certain amount of cash, because his fiscal inheritance from Major was pretty good.
Cameron could get away with a certain amount of squeezing spending, because the condition of the state was pretty solid.
Starmer has the much harder position of having taken over a state where the finances and estate are both awful. All the talk of Ming vases (which is fair enough) has to engage with the reality that nice Mr Sunak and good Mr Hunt left a terrible inheritance, and a fair bit of it was deliberate setting of political traps.
"A better politician would be able to untangle the knot better" may be true, though I'm not convinced it's completely true. But when it's said from the peanut gallery by those responsible for the mess in the first place, it's not classy behaviour.
To "bring back the family doctor" system, thousands more GPs will be trained
There will also be a push for GPs to lean on artificial intelligence to take notes while other technology will be used to speed up answering calls to surgeries
Newly qualified dentists will need to practise in the NHS for a minimum period - the government has indicated they intend this to be three years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx247rn0252t
Lord Darzi proposed this 20 years ago. I can't remember, why didn't it happen?
Everyone's doing it now, for free.
Sunak and Hunt the evil twins ? In your dreams.
The reason Starmer is in the shit is he had no plan for government, doesnt understand wealth creation and growth and his chancellor wrecked economic confidence by investing a black hole and taxing the ass off voters.
Starmer's problems are largely home grown.
NEW THREAD
The public appetite for snake oil salesmen remains strong, hence Reforms polling, though their pledges are even more ludicrous.
We aren't the only country struggling with this, indeed slow growth, bloated welfare and pensions budgets, and rapidly ageing population dempgraphics are putting similar strains on every developed country. Not that that helps.
Whilst I hate that sort of barrier, the path is unavoidably narrow between wall and fence, and there does appear to be a sharpish bend immediately afterwards, with no sighting. A cyclist could easily go at speed around that bend without knowing what is beyond it. The barrier at least stops cyclists from going too fast.
As ever, much depends on the exact situation on the ground...
Sadly, infrastructure often needs to be designed not for the reasonable user, but for the stupid ones as well.
So there were times when I would have been classed as disabled; times when I was fine, and times when I was disabled but did able-bodied things because I fought through the pain. But I could not always do that.
Whether I was 'disabled' or not would depend on how you classify the pain I was in (it was limiting), and, most importantly, when I was assessed.
From memory, I only ever got three 'advantages' because of my issue:
*) A parking slot on uni campus;
*) In first year, I got moved form the ninth floor in my halls, to the ground floor, because I was on crutches and the lift was out.
*) For my second year, I got given a halls room in a residence beside the uni.
..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...
Any "observers" saying that today would invite derisive laughter.
It might even have left them with the political capital to pick the triple lock.
As it is, the government is going to spend the next few years bumping up against a self imposed lack of fiscal headroom, which makes every minor financial surprise into a crisis.
On this one there are actually fairly decent sightlines there, and the width of the path is around 1.5m, which is quite suitable eg for an adult taking a child to school or a blind person with a Guide Dog, mobility scooter, pram, wheelchair etc.
It's a Public Footpath not a bridleway or a PROW - no access for cyclists allowed. Since there is no ASB problem in the whole area, and has basically never been one, and lawful users take priority over unlawful obstructions, it's clear cut both legally and from a positive benefit pov.
I'm prioritising it because it restricts a safe walking route to school. The other end of it is here, right next to the zebra crossing where the lollipop lady stands. That one is actually quite comfortable.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RwP6j3obMfWddco66
I have so many barriers here that I am prioritising important routes and obvious needs. Here for example, is a side entrance to the Rec where the path shown here is only 75-90cm wide between fences for 50m, so even a basic wheelchair is very difficult. It has a horrid kissing gate / 1.4m high croquet hoop combo at the other end which is worse than an A-barrier and I have to turn sideways or do a limbo dance.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YxxSUjjGz3Td3S4fA
I'm leaving that because the inherent width of the path removes any benefit, even though it also meant that whoever put it there in 198x was a gormless twat and added nothing.
That's one reason why "lived experience", as opposed to assumptions made by the rest of us, is so important.
The philosophy in UK law for 30-40 years has been that disabled people are part of "us", who fully participate in society, and we design society to reflect that. They are not "them" on whose behalf we make decisions which we then impose.
It's a long process of change
1 - It assumes the existence of reckless cyclists. Basically there aren't any in that area. That is one minor culture war I am fighting locally - against the folk myth about ASB created by poor police advice in the 1970s 1980s and 1990s when they believed in cutting up estates, rather than having them made safer by encouraging public use. These myths are crazily persistent - new residents can pick it up by osmosis.
2 - It's a Public Right of Way. The law is that lawful users cannot be restricted, and that ASB is a matter for the police - not for members of the public to be denied access to the public sphere.
3 - Even in Benthamite terms the argument fails - there is perhaps one cyclist a week using it, and to avoid the risk for the tiny % who would cycle "recklessly" the proposal is that a significant chunk of the community be locked out from their lawful use of a public footpath.
4 - And it's a Public Footpath, so it is not "designed" - it just exists. That one was there when I went to that school in the 1970s, and is on Victorian Ordnance survey maps. It may well be that the houses either side have nicked bits of the Commons by pushing their fences.
If it were me I would have the County Council CPO 2m more on the S Side to make the path as useable as the ones on the estate behind it, which are beautiful. The garden that side is so generous they would not miss it. Then it could be upgraded to a shared path with no problems, and the kids could cycle or scoot to school that way. But then they may go Nimby.
They have all the powers to do it already, and that is the future of where our active travel networks need partly to come from; we just need a more communitarian set of values and some vision.
Councils are also required to have a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, an LCWIP. But these have mainly been casualties of the gutting of local government.