Life after Starmer – politicalbetting.com

System · July 16

Life after Starmer – politicalbetting.com

Andy Burnham would be the British public’s preferred choice for Labour leader, if Keir Starmer was no longer in role. But one in four say none of the listed politicians. pic.twitter.com/olBFEBiiMI

Read the full story here

wooliedyed · July 16

Who in the blue hell is suggesting Lou Haigh?!

MaxPB · July 16

They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

wooliedyed said:
Who in the blue hell is suggesting Lou Haigh?!

Former Transport Minister who has a problem not losing his mobile phone when it gets a year old. So
mobile phone companies?

wooliedyed · July 16

Lou Haigh and Pat McFadden are the Rehman Chishti candidates

DavidL · July 16

wooliedyed said:
Lou Haigh and Pat McFadden are the Rehman Chishti candidates

I thought that it was remarkable that both of their mums were on the panel.

MaxPB · July 16

Which absolute nutters are picking Rachel Reeves. Morons.

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

MaxPB said:
Which absolute nutters are picking Rachel Reeves. Morons.

Ellie Reeves, Nicholas Joicey ?

nunu2 · July 16

A precedent is set now
Anyone working in the government who wants their fellow country men to flood this country will know all they have to do is leak some data and bingo, thousands are given a free pass to come. There is an incentive now.

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has just reacted to the unexpected jump in the inflation rate to 3.6%.

She says she knows "working people are still struggling with the cost of living".

"That is why we have already taken action by increasing the national minimum wage for three million workers, rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school and extending the £3 bus far cap," she says.

The Chancellor admits "there is more to do" but she is "determined we deliver on our Plan for Change to put more money into people’s pockets".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g89vqp8p4t

by "extending", you mean increasing the cap by 50%.

DavidL · July 16

You know, looking at that list rather reminds you how a bland and not particularly principled no mark like Starmer got the leadership in the first place. It is an abysmal choice, as was the Tory leadership race.

wooliedyed · July 16

MaxPB said:
Which absolute nutters are picking Rachel Reeves. Morons.

Radical public weepers who enjoy cruelty to the elderly, disabled, farmers and small business owners.
A significant power group

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.

Are you sure it wasn't because of the £22bn blackhole?

Pulpstar · July 16

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.

The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think

DavidL · July 16

FrancisUrquhart said:
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has just reacted to the unexpected jump in the inflation rate to 3.6%.

She says she knows "working people are still struggling with the cost of living".

"That is why we have already taken action by increasing the national minimum wage for three million workers, rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school and extending the £3 bus far cap," she says.

The Chancellor admits "there is more to do" but she is "determined we deliver on our Plan for Change to put more money into people’s pockets".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g89vqp8p4t

by "extending", you mean increasing the cap by 50%.

This is what you get when the Governor of the BoE starts talking about cutting interest rates. The man makes Jonah look like a lucky charm.

wooliedyed · July 16

You might as well stick Gumbert O'Flanagan on there. Made up Irish tinkers still knock all of those into a cocked hat

AnneJGP · July 16

Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.

wooliedyed · July 16

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
Are you sure it wasn't because of the £22bn blackhole?

Must be. They were shocked when the treasury house goblins brought out the dusty, cobweb covered legers to discover the horrors within.

Stark_Dawning · July 16

Who is responsible for this outrage?

Pulpstar · July 16

Article about whether or not the 3% mortgage will be back seems to have disappeared from BBC news 😂

another_richard · July 16

FrancisUrquhart said:
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has just reacted to the unexpected jump in the inflation rate to 3.6%.

She says she knows "working people are still struggling with the cost of living".

"That is why we have already taken action by increasing the national minimum wage for three million workers, rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school and extending the £3 bus far cap," she says.

The Chancellor admits "there is more to do" but she is "determined we deliver on our Plan for Change to put more money into people’s pockets".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g89vqp8p4t

by "extending", you mean increasing the cap by 50%.

Cutting the chocolate ration to 20g is announced as an increase in the chocolate ration to 20g.

Pulpstar · July 16

Stokes pleads guilty.

DavidL · July 16

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think

Its almost as if increasing taxes on business, employers NI in particular, combined with above inflation pay settlements for most of the public sector has bled through into inflation. Who could possibly have foreseen such a thing?

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think
Its almost as if increasing taxes on business, employers NI in particular, combined with above inflation pay settlements for most of the public sector has bled through into inflation. Who could possibly have foreseen such a thing?

Having a chancellor with a stellar background in economics, they would never be so stupid.

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo

malcolmg · July 16

wooliedyed said:
Lou Haigh and Pat McFadden are the Rehman Chishti candidates

First time I have ever seen teh no user's name never mind know who the clown is. Where do they find these no marks.

Fishing · July 16

wooliedyed said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
Are you sure it wasn't because of the £22bn blackhole?
Must be. They were shocked when the treasury house goblins brought out the dusty, cobweb covered legers to discover the horrors within.

So shocked that they doubled it with giveaways to polluting foreign countries, public sector unions and now Mauritians.

Malmesbury · July 16

wooliedyed said:
You might as well stick Gumbert O'Flanagan on there. Made up Irish tinkers still knock all of those into a cocked hat

You mean Existence Challenged Hibernian Travelling Metal Technicians, Shirley?

IanB2 · July 16

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think

The US is just announced as 2.7% for last month, up from 2.4%, with core inflation at 2.9% and an annualised rate based on June of 3.5%, as the Trump tariff effect spreads across the economy. The Eurozone has yet to announce but a rise from 1.9% to 2.0% is forecast; but for lower fuel costs, it would be significantly higher.

TheScreamingEagles · July 16

So this is Trump's nominee to be Ambassador to Malaysia, there's sucking up and then there's this.

https://x.com/FsgGruppen/status/1943328954884198843

Malmesbury · July 16

On the last thread -

I recall that Rory Stewart was lied to and given the run around for months over donations to one moderate sized charity.

Interesting to draw a parallel.

malcolmg · July 16

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
Are you sure it wasn't because of the £22bn blackhole?

That hole must be a lot bigger by now or has she been digging a new one.

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
Are you sure it wasn't because of the £22bn blackhole?
That hole must be a lot bigger by now or has she been digging a new one.

This comes to mind for no particular reason.

Foxy · July 16

Not much love for Streeting.

Rayner is the only real option, and would fire up the party.

Pulpstar · July 16

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think
The US is just announced as 2.7% for last month, up from 2.4%, with core inflation at 2.9% and an annualised rate based on June of 3.5%, as the Trump tariff effect spreads across the economy. The Eurozone has yet to announce but a rise from 1.9% to 2.0% is forecast; but for lower fuel costs, it would be significantly higher.

Europe collectively has better drivers then Trump and Reeves. Might carry on adding European index to my pension for the moment.

Nigelb · July 16

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo

Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?

The bar for super injunctions ought to be dramatically higher that it apparently is. If indeed they should be allowed at all.
They are not there for the convenience of ministers and civil service.

IanB2 · July 16

Foxy said:
Not much love for Streeting.

Rayner is the only real option, and would fire up the party.

We will know that Streeting is in the running when we find his grandmother up on eBay…

BartholomewRoberts · July 16

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?

Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.

MaxPB · July 16

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think
The US is just announced as 2.7% for last month, up from 2.4%, with core inflation at 2.9% and an annualised rate based on June of 3.5%, as the Trump tariff effect spreads across the economy. The Eurozone has yet to announce but a rise from 1.9% to 2.0% is forecast; but for lower fuel costs, it would be significantly higher.

But Trump's tariffs is downwards price pressure for the rest of the world. They are importing inflation and exporting deflation with such a loony tariff policy. Labour have squandered a very favourable position on inflation and it is hurting millions of families.

DecrepiterJohnL · July 16

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think
Its almost as if increasing taxes on business, employers NI in particular, combined with above inflation pay settlements for most of the public sector has bled through into inflation. Who could possibly have foreseen such a thing?

"Inflation ticked up in June, driven mainly by motor fuel prices which fell only slightly, compared with a much larger decrease at this time last year," said Richard Heys, acting chief economist for the ONS, the UK's official statistics authority.

"Food price inflation has increased for the third consecutive month to its highest annual rate since February of last year," he said, although it remains well below the peaks seen two years ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3en2enpy7po

Malmesbury · July 16

O/T

Andy Burnham crashed out of national politics fairly convincingly.

He has a fair sized job, seems to like it and is very secure there. Even with a massive swing against Labour, he has a strong personal vote.

Perhaps just as importantly, he has solid support within the Labour Party as Mayor. You can’t find a Labour member, left to right, who will say a bad word about how he’s done.

If he went back to national politics as leader, he’d have to burn that popularity down.

Malmesbury · July 16

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?

The bar for super injunctions ought to be dramatically higher that it apparently is. If indeed they should be allowed at all.
They are not there for the convenience of ministers and civil service.

The reason for it taking a year is quite simple - the number of people in the structures of government fighting tooth and nail to keep the injunctions.

See Hillsborough - where the resistance to openness went on and on.

Stuartinromford · July 16

AnneJGP said:
Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.

And also with you.

Beyond a certain point, you can't keep blaming the poor buggers who try and fail to run the country well. Maybe the job as currently configured is essentially undoable.

As an analogy, consider a formerly great but currently struggling football team. (I'm from near Portsmouth- I know of what I speak). Changing the manager every five minutes rarely helps and often makes things worse.

If that's what's going on, what's the answer? I don't think that being bought out by some shady foreign squillionaire is an option.

another_richard · July 16

TheScreamingEagles said:
So this is Trump's nominee to be Ambassador to Malaysia, there's sucking up and then there's this.

https://x.com/FsgGruppen/status/1943328954884198843

Sucking up and sucking off.

boulay · July 16

Foxy said:
Not much love for Streeting.

Rayner is the only real option, and would fire up the party.

Well that’s what really matters, that she will fire up the party; the fucking up the country part is secondary to the party.

Big_G_NorthWales · July 16

Good morning

Sky on the increase in inflation

Economist says businesses maybe passing on more of their costs than expected

You do not need to be an economist to understand that the NI and minimum wage hikes would be passed on in prices

Businesses are businesses, not charities and it does beg the question when will Labour understand business ?

Certainly not Reeves, who has done far more damage than Truss not least because the conservatives got rid of her after just 6 weeks

Labour cannot afford Reeves, let alone the country but when you look at the header just be afraid because in this vacuum Farage looms large

https://news.sky.com/story/money-live-consumer-personal-finance-latest-newsletter-sky-news-13040934?postid=9884924#liveblog-body

Sean_F · July 16

TheScreamingEagles said:
So this is Trump's nominee to be Ambassador to Malaysia, there's sucking up and then there's this.

https://x.com/FsgGruppen/status/1943328954884198843

I think I’d rather be burned at the stake, than do that to a man who fantasies (and perhaps does more than fantasise), about his own daughter’s hot teenage body.

Nigelb · July 16

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.

I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.

moonshine · July 16

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think
The US is just announced as 2.7% for last month, up from 2.4%, with core inflation at 2.9% and an annualised rate based on June of 3.5%, as the Trump tariff effect spreads across the economy. The Eurozone has yet to announce but a rise from 1.9% to 2.0% is forecast; but for lower fuel costs, it would be significantly higher.
But Trump's tariffs is downwards price pressure for the rest of the world. They are importing inflation and exporting deflation with such a loony tariff policy. Labour have squandered a very favourable position on inflation and it is hurting millions of families.

Stop printing govt debt to cover a spending addiction and inflation will recede on the aggregate. But I am resigned to never having a government with the will to do that ever again. All that billy bullshit of “austerity” after 2010 and they still didn’t have the stomach.

The only answer is to maintain a good level of personal debt, remain gainfully employed with regular salary reviews and get fat off from government incompetence inflating away your debt.

Nigelb · July 16

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
So this is Trump's nominee to be Ambassador to Malaysia, there's sucking up and then there's this.

https://x.com/FsgGruppen/status/1943328954884198843
Sucking up and sucking off.

He definitely sucks.

DecrepiterJohnL · July 16

That next leader poll – the two mayors not in parliament, NOTA and DK together account for 67 per cent. That's more than half.

moonshine · July 16

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.

Are we plebs ever to be told whether the leak was accidental or deliberate?

Sean_F · July 16

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.

Agreed. I did not want to rush to conclusions last night. While there may initially have been good grounds for the super injunction, it became apparent that it was kept in place to spare the government embarrassment.

JosiasJessop · July 16

The one thing I'll say about the dress / school incident:

There's zero way I'd place my son, when he is twelve, in the media spotlight in this sort of manner. You cannot control the story, and her name will be permanently associated with it.

Each to their own, but I'd fight to keep his name out of the story, not in it.

WhisperingOracle · July 16

Morning, PB.

I find it rather interesting that, underneath the left֊right clashes on this on social media, there are more complex conflicts on other things. Wallace's concept of honour and reciprocation against the immigration trend ; the same against democratic accountability , and then a fusion of this traditional, imperial honour, as with the Gurkhas, with an idea of protecting abd including the people,
on the left of the debate.

Foxy · July 16

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
Are we plebs ever to be told whether the leak was accidental or deliberate?

It was from a British Soldier working outside the MoD system, based in the Regents Park Barracks according to this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/15/afghan-resettlement-scheme-secret-superinjunction-explainer?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

There are units of the Logistics, SAS and Hussars based there.

WhisperingOracle · July 16

Against the "anti-immigration trend", that should say there.

Barnesian · July 16

Ed Davey proposes decoupling the price of renewable energy from the marginal cost of gas. I've long argued for this.

It will help bring down inflation and help energy intensive industry. Good policy. I hope it is adopted.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/liberal-democrat-ed-davey-nigel-farage-kemi-badenoch-government-b2789700.html

wooliedyed · July 16

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.

The problem Healey has is that Labour kept the super injunction in place for longer than the previous government, so clearly not that troubled.
That aside this absolutely requires a parliamentary inquiry and accountability

boulay · July 16

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.

The more info that comes out the stranger it gets.

Wallace said this morning that he only applied for an injunction.

Mercer is saying that Sunak asked him to sort out the departments who were involved and their bun fight over the matter.

Is there the possibility that politicians have been railroaded by govt lawyers and civil servants to follow a course of action and accept their judgement? Did ministers instruct govt lawyers to actively upgrade the injunction to super injunction or was this something the lawyers decided was necessary or civil servants did?

I can understand why initially the gov pt wanted to keep this quiet but something must have happened to turn this from a four month injunction to what it became.

Somewhere, in cabinet minutes, civil service minutes or legal opinions it will show either Rishi as PM said “we need to cover this shit up or were doomed at the next election” (yes I know), there was substantial advice from Civil Servants/cabinet Office that PM or ministers followed blindly, or Civil Servants/Lawyers just pushed along a route independently.

If it was Rishi and Ministers who thought this was a good idea then they will get all the opprobrium that’s possible but if it’s either bad advice or independent actions then it raises vital questions regarding how the CC or Law office act.

Mexicanpete · July 16

...

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
So this is Trump's nominee to be Ambassador to Malaysia, there's sucking up and then there's this.

https://x.com/FsgGruppen/status/1943328954884198843
I think I’d rather be burned at the stake, than do that to a man who fantasies (and perhaps does more than fantasise), about his own daughter’s hot teenage body.

You would have been perfectly entitled to stop after word fifteen. That is where I would have stopped.

Selebian · July 16

Stuartinromford said:

AnneJGP said:
Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.
And also with you.

Beyond a certain point, you can't keep blaming the poor buggers who try and fail to run the country well. Maybe the job as currently configured is essentially undoable.

As an analogy, consider a formerly great but currently struggling football team. (I'm from near Portsmouth- I know of what I speak). Changing the manager every five minutes rarely helps and often makes things worse.

If that's what's going on, what's the answer? I don't think that being bought out by some shady foreign squillionaire is an option.

I'm struggling to think of formerly great football teams near Portsmouth... I mean, Southampton used to be ok

StillWaters · July 16

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
Are you sure it wasn't because of the £22bn blackhole?

Wasn’t that the cost of the last inflation-busting pay rise for doctors?

moonshine · July 16

I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46

StillWaters · July 16

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has just reacted to the unexpected jump in the inflation rate to 3.6%.

She says she knows "working people are still struggling with the cost of living".

"That is why we have already taken action by increasing the national minimum wage for three million workers, rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school and extending the £3 bus far cap," she says.

The Chancellor admits "there is more to do" but she is "determined we deliver on our Plan for Change to put more money into people’s pockets".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g89vqp8p4t

by "extending", you mean increasing the cap by 50%.
This is what you get when the Governor of the BoE starts talking about cutting interest rates. The man makes Jonah look like a lucky charm.

It’s great for me - I have a fixed rate mortgage at 1.49% so instead of paying it down I am buying short dated gilts.

AnneJGP · July 16

Stuartinromford said:

AnneJGP said:
Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.
And also with you.

Beyond a certain point, you can't keep blaming the poor buggers who try and fail to run the country well. Maybe the job as currently configured is essentially undoable.

As an analogy, consider a formerly great but currently struggling football team. (I'm from near Portsmouth- I know of what I speak). Changing the manager every five minutes rarely helps and often makes things worse.

If that's what's going on, what's the answer? I don't think that being bought out by some shady foreign squillionaire is an option.

Maybe running the country is undoable at the moment, but I'd feel more hopeful if Labour had entered government with at least a semblance of a plan after all that time in opposition.

StillWaters · July 16

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has just reacted to the unexpected jump in the inflation rate to 3.6%.

She says she knows "working people are still struggling with the cost of living".

"That is why we have already taken action by increasing the national minimum wage for three million workers, rolling out free breakfast clubs in every primary school and extending the £3 bus far cap," she says.

The Chancellor admits "there is more to do" but she is "determined we deliver on our Plan for Change to put more money into people’s pockets".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c4g89vqp8p4t

by "extending", you mean increasing the cap by 50%.
Cutting the chocolate ration to 20g is announced as an increase in the chocolate ration to 20g.

Not at all. It’s a modification of the governments obesity strategy. The detail is in appendix B, sub-report F, table 3 in the footnote to paragraph 747 (ii)(b)(x)

moonshine · July 16

AnneJGP said:

Stuartinromford said:

AnneJGP said:
Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.
And also with you.

Beyond a certain point, you can't keep blaming the poor buggers who try and fail to run the country well. Maybe the job as currently configured is essentially undoable.

As an analogy, consider a formerly great but currently struggling football team. (I'm from near Portsmouth- I know of what I speak). Changing the manager every five minutes rarely helps and often makes things worse.

If that's what's going on, what's the answer? I don't think that being bought out by some shady foreign squillionaire is an option.
Maybe running the country is undoable at the moment, but I'd feel more hopeful if Labour had entered government with at least a semblance of a plan after all that time in opposition.

We have known for a very long time that it’s undoable because of the way the instruments of power frustrate elected officials (chapeau Nigel Hawthorne).

We need the wholesale shutdown and replacement of the treasury, various departments and quangos, with externally appointed individuals and fresh mandates. But it’s a bit like trying to turn around a failing aged blue chip company. I’m not convinced it can be done.

Mexicanpete · July 16

Selebian said:

Stuartinromford said:

AnneJGP said:
Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.
And also with you.

Beyond a certain point, you can't keep blaming the poor buggers who try and fail to run the country well. Maybe the job as currently configured is essentially undoable.

As an analogy, consider a formerly great but currently struggling football team. (I'm from near Portsmouth- I know of what I speak). Changing the manager every five minutes rarely helps and often makes things worse.

If that's what's going on, what's the answer? I don't think that being bought out by some shady foreign squillionaire is an option.
I'm struggling to think of formerly great football teams near Portsmouth... I mean, Southampton used to be ok

Portsmouth were quite the team postwar and into the 1950s. They were media promoted during the Redknapp years. I still haven't forgiven the referee for the semi- final when they went on to win the FA cup.

More recently my son had a house in Fratton, across the railway tracks from the stadium, sorry, ground. Nonetheless we could still hear the roar when every away team goal went in.

wooliedyed · July 16

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46

I don't think Zia is helping himself with Reform going in studs up on Suella (or Jenrick for that matter)
I wouldn't be surprised if he suddenly 'doesnt want to spend his time getting Reform elected' again

Nigelb · July 16

.

Barnesian said:
Ed Davey proposes decoupling the price of renewable energy from the marginal cost of gas. I've long argued for this.

It will help bring down inflation and help energy intensive industry. Good policy. I hope it is adopted.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/liberal-democrat-ed-davey-nigel-farage-kemi-badenoch-government-b2789700.html

Local pricing would have been one way of doing this; Milliband rejected it (as it would benefit regions not in the South East).

Nigelb · July 16

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46

This should not be reduced to an anti-immigration hobbyhorse. It's a serious matter of democratic accountability.

tlg86 · July 16

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The problem Healey has is that Labour kept the super injunction in place for longer than the previous government, so clearly not that troubled.
That aside this absolutely requires a parliamentary inquiry and accountability

Let's be honest, if this had all come out before the election, it would have been curtains for the Tories and quite possibly denied Labour a majority.

Selebian · July 16

Mexicanpete said:

Selebian said:

Stuartinromford said:

AnneJGP said:
Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.
And also with you.

Beyond a certain point, you can't keep blaming the poor buggers who try and fail to run the country well. Maybe the job as currently configured is essentially undoable.

As an analogy, consider a formerly great but currently struggling football team. (I'm from near Portsmouth- I know of what I speak). Changing the manager every five minutes rarely helps and often makes things worse.

If that's what's going on, what's the answer? I don't think that being bought out by some shady foreign squillionaire is an option.
I'm struggling to think of formerly great football teams near Portsmouth... I mean, Southampton used to be ok
Portsmouth were quite the team postwar and into the 1950s. They were media promoted during the Redknapp years. I still haven't forgiven the referee for the semi- final when they went on to win the FA cup.

More recently my son had a house in Fratton, across the railway tracks from the stadium, sorry, ground. Nonetheless we could still hear the roar when every away team goal went in.

Indeed. Just hoping to stir up a bit of Skate v Scummer action.

(I used to live in Southampton and work in Portsmouth.)

Ratters · July 16

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:
They can't even blame the Tories on inflation, the previous government left office with inflation down to 2% and generally falling/stable. This is all on Labour and their idiotic tax/spending policies. There's no new external shocks, no COVID, the wars in Ukraine/Israel have already been factored in, Trump's tariffs should make UK prices lower given export diversion by China and other affected countries.

If ever we needed evidence that Labour haven't got a clue how to run the economy this is it. In fairly benign conditions, with no substantial external factors they've let inflation go up from 2.2% when they took over in July to 3.6% last month and still rising. They've caused this, not global conditions, not the previous government, they did. The Tories need to absolutely destroy them on inflation, they actually did the hard work and got inflation back down to acceptable levels, Labour have completely thrown that away.
The only negative external factor I can think of is the cocoa price leap. It isn't a massive factor in the grand scheme.
This summer's weather maybe being too dry for UK crops won't factor n till harvest I think
The US is just announced as 2.7% for last month, up from 2.4%, with core inflation at 2.9% and an annualised rate based on June of 3.5%, as the Trump tariff effect spreads across the economy. The Eurozone has yet to announce but a rise from 1.9% to 2.0% is forecast; but for lower fuel costs, it would be significantly higher.

I'm not convinced we'll see any more rate cuts in the US and UK this year, or early next year.

3.6% is too elevated to justify it in the UK. It's no longer 'just a bit' off 2%, it's nearly double.

And in the US we are seeing inflation rise from a lower base as tariffs feed through, which have not yet been fully felt by consumer prices (even for existing tariffs in effect, if ignoring threatened ones).

Nigelb · July 16

boulay said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The more info that comes out the stranger it gets.

Wallace said this morning that he only applied for an injunction.

Mercer is saying that Sunak asked him to sort out the departments who were involved and their bun fight over the matter.

Is there the possibility that politicians have been railroaded by govt lawyers and civil servants to follow a course of action and accept their judgement? Did ministers instruct govt lawyers to actively upgrade the injunction to super injunction or was this something the lawyers decided was necessary or civil servants did?

I can understand why initially the gov pt wanted to keep this quiet but something must have happened to turn this from a four month injunction to what it became.

Somewhere, in cabinet minutes, civil service minutes or legal opinions it will show either Rishi as PM said “we need to cover this shit up or were doomed at the next election” (yes I know), there was substantial advice from Civil Servants/cabinet Office that PM or ministers followed blindly, or Civil Servants/Lawyers just pushed along a route independently.

If it was Rishi and Ministers who thought this was a good idea then they will get all the opprobrium that’s possible but if it’s either bad advice or independent actions then it raises vital questions regarding how the CC or Law office act.

The minister is responsible. No one forced him to take out a super injunction, and if he wasn't capable of seeing that such a thing over any extended period of time was completely unacceptable, and doing something about it, then he wasn't fit to be a minister.

And in any case, he ought to have been considering resignation over the leak.

He's just making excuses.

Selebian · July 16

Barnesian said:
Ed Davey proposes decoupling the price of renewable energy from the marginal cost of gas. I've long argued for this.

It will help bring down inflation and help energy intensive industry. Good policy. I hope it is adopted.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/liberal-democrat-ed-davey-nigel-farage-kemi-badenoch-government-b2789700.html

Obviously makes sense, but can those old contracts be changed? The providers are making a killing, given the rise in gas (and so wholesale) prices, but I doubt they'd want to give it up. Unless the government has other levers to pull to give them incentives to agree to changes.

moonshine · July 16

wooliedyed said:

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46
I don't think Zia is helping himself with Reform going in studs up on Suella (or Jenrick for that matter)
I wouldn't be surprised if he suddenly 'doesnt want to spend his time getting Reform elected' again

The consistency in the polls is such that Reform really need to start thinking about how they would govern. Labour had been out of power for an age but they could still lean on plenty of serving MPs and grandees with experience of government.

Seems to me Farage would be well served by having a couple of ex cabinet ministers in his ranks to help navigate the den of vipers in Whitehall. The first job of a leader is to recruit well and we’ve not seen a lot of evidence Farage is much good at it. As 2029 inches closer will be fascinating to see what he does.

MattW · July 16

wooliedyed said:

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46
I don't think Zia is helping himself with Reform going in studs up on Suella (or Jenrick for that matter)
I wouldn't be surprised if he suddenly 'doesnt want to spend his time getting Reform elected' again

I could not see any Reform MPs in the Commons yesterday for the statement re: the data leak wrt MOD Data Breach, nor could I find their names in the Parliamentlive report.

Does anyone know where they were?

wooliedyed · July 16

tlg86 said:

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The problem Healey has is that Labour kept the super injunction in place for longer than the previous government, so clearly not that troubled.
That aside this absolutely requires a parliamentary inquiry and accountability
Let's be honest, if this had all come out before the election, it would have been curtains for the Tories and quite possibly denied Labour a majority.

How would it have denied Labour a majority?
And if it had come out before the election it would have been 'we found out 6 months ago, injunction in place to protect those on the list whilst we assessed the damage, we have concluded that we will do the following.....'and they'd have taken a hit on incompetence which was already pretty much priced in

isam · July 16

Could she really not have known about this? And what is ‘an huge’ all about?

I am shocked by the secrecy and cover-up over the admission of thousands of Afghans to Britain at the cost of £7bn to the taxpayer. A decision that was in itself wrong.

It is an huge betrayal of public trust.

Those responsible in both Governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account.

thetimes.com/uk/defence/art…

https://x.com/trussliz/status/1945206550089314477?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

Somebody has been telling porkies, receipts right up until a few weeks ago

Revealed: What the Government said in secret court sessions about relocating Afghans to the UK - and what it's saying now...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14909175/What-Government-said-secret-court-sessions.html

Eabhal · July 16

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46

It's cutting through - number 2 story on the BBC Most Read, which is my primary index of engagement. But Wallace has - admirably - stuck his head above the parapet, and the story is entirely about the cock up and an explanation of why there needed to be secrecy.

The sexual assault angle hasn't gone anywhere outside the Leonosphere. Yet.

boulay · July 16

Nigelb said:

boulay said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The more info that comes out the stranger it gets.

Wallace said this morning that he only applied for an injunction.

Mercer is saying that Sunak asked him to sort out the departments who were involved and their bun fight over the matter.

Is there the possibility that politicians have been railroaded by govt lawyers and civil servants to follow a course of action and accept their judgement? Did ministers instruct govt lawyers to actively upgrade the injunction to super injunction or was this something the lawyers decided was necessary or civil servants did?

I can understand why initially the gov pt wanted to keep this quiet but something must have happened to turn this from a four month injunction to what it became.

Somewhere, in cabinet minutes, civil service minutes or legal opinions it will show either Rishi as PM said “we need to cover this shit up or were doomed at the next election” (yes I know), there was substantial advice from Civil Servants/cabinet Office that PM or ministers followed blindly, or Civil Servants/Lawyers just pushed along a route independently.

If it was Rishi and Ministers who thought this was a good idea then they will get all the opprobrium that’s possible but if it’s either bad advice or independent actions then it raises vital questions regarding how the CC or Law office act.
The minister is responsible. No one forced him to take out a super injunction, and if he wasn't capable of seeing that such a thing over any extended period of time was completely unacceptable, and doing something about it, then he wasn't fit to be a minister.

And in any case, he ought to have been considering resignation over the leak.

He's just making excuses.

I agree with the resignation over the leak issue. My point is more about when and how this morphed from an injunction to a super injunction. Who pushed the upgrade, when, who had to ok the decision.

We are talking about democratic accountability so part of that is knowing if the decisions were made by democratically elected politicians or alternatively civil servants/government lawyers.

If we know how these decisions were made and authorised then it’s a lot easier to try and avoid it being able to happen again.

At the moment however we don’t know who had the power and ordered government lawyers to upgrade this to a super injunction and we don’t know who provided the advice and what the advice was that ensured the situation rolled on for a couple of years.

Mexicanpete · July 16

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46
This should not be reduced to an anti-immigration hobbyhorse. It's a serious matter of democratic accountability.

Reading between the lines on here, I would conclude that Baldy Ben, who I like and respect (Braverman and Jenrick - I'll just spit that out) did the right and proper thing with 24,000 Afghans who looked after our boys and girls in Helmand. Why Healy with the support of the Speaker kept the injunction going seems to be where the problem lies.

Reform really are a bucket of sh*t for trawling the original safety issue up and turning it onto a skin toned race issue. They are nonetheless welcome to chase down this government for the subsequent cover-up. Healy and Hoyle should be gone!

ydoethur · July 16

isam said:
Could she really not have known about this? And what is ‘an huge’ all about?

I am shocked by the secrecy and cover-up over the admission of thousands of Afghans to Britain at the cost of £7bn to the taxpayer. A decision that was in itself wrong.

It is an huge betrayal of public trust.

Those responsible in both Governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account.

thetimes.com/uk/defence/art…

https://x.com/trussliz/status/1945206550089314477?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Technically in formal English 'an huge' is correct, as is 'an hotel' 'an hearing' etc. H was for centuries treated as a silent letter, in effect a glottal stop, so it was common to take the vowel sound from after it (in some dialects it still is, of course).

It's just it's very seldom used as it 'feels' wrong so I'm assuming it's a typo.

(This is your PB crazy fact for this morning.)

Leon · July 16

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The problem Healey has is that Labour kept the super injunction in place for longer than the previous government, so clearly not that troubled.
That aside this absolutely requires a parliamentary inquiry and accountability

Worse. The Labour government appealed AGAINST lifting the super injunction. They wanted it; they liked it

It is a feast of lies inside a carnival of lies. Many many people should resign, and the more you learn the worse it gets

moonshine · July 16

isam said:
Could she really not have known about this? And what is ‘an huge’ all about?

I am shocked by the secrecy and cover-up over the admission of thousands of Afghans to Britain at the cost of £7bn to the taxpayer. A decision that was in itself wrong.

It is an huge betrayal of public trust.

Those responsible in both Governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account.

thetimes.com/uk/defence/art…

https://x.com/trussliz/status/1945206550089314477?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

An huge. Chuckle.

wooliedyed · July 16

isam said:
Could she really not have known about this? And what is ‘an huge’ all about?

I am shocked by the secrecy and cover-up over the admission of thousands of Afghans to Britain at the cost of £7bn to the taxpayer. A decision that was in itself wrong.

It is an huge betrayal of public trust.

Those responsible in both Governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account.

thetimes.com/uk/defence/art…

https://x.com/trussliz/status/1945206550089314477?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

The info didn't come to govt attention until August 2023, she had long gone by then

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

Healey is out again this morning, no sackings, doesn't want any witch hunts. I am sure Starmer told us things but be different and restore public trust in institutions.

I don't understand why the government haven't as in the thick of it found somebody who is going to have to fall on their sword.

stodge · July 16

Morning all

I saw in my working life the horrendous consequences of data breaches when sensitive personal information about individuals and families was inadvertently sent to the wrong email address. It was often when the sender was overworked or just about to go on holiday.

It’s an esoteric issue in the maelstrom of our governance but I do think we need to ask questions about the accumulation of personal information from both the public and private sectors. It’s often been said knowledge is power but data isn’t knowledge and it’s my experience much of what is obtained is never accessed or used.

Adding to that are prevailing attitudes toward immigration in many quarters and I can understand why successive Governments sought to keep what was agreed confidential. The central question is what do we owe (if anything) those who supported our forces in Afghanistan and presumably backed the previous Kabul Government which collapsed so completely?

There’s a part of me that remembers how in the past we have offered sanctuary to those fleeing tyranny and repression.

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

Eabhal said:

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46
It's cutting through - number 2 story on the BBC Most Read, which is my primary index of engagement. But Wallace has - admirably - stuck his head above the parapet, and the story is entirely about the cock up and an explanation of why there needed to be secrecy.

The sexual assault angle hasn't gone anywhere outside the Leonosphere. Yet.

The Mail had an interesting tit bit they are under a second injunction that they are forbidden from discussing individual cases.

BartholomewRoberts · July 16

DecrepiterJohnL said:
That next leader poll – the two mayors not in parliament, NOTA and DK together account for 67 per cent. That's more than half.

If you're going to go with a fraction, I'd sat its two thirds rather than more than half.

TheScreamingEagles · July 16

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The problem Healey has is that Labour kept the super injunction in place for longer than the previous government, so clearly not that troubled.
That aside this absolutely requires a parliamentary inquiry and accountability
Worse. The Labour government appealed AGAINST lifting the super injunction. They wanted it; they liked it

It is a feast of lies inside a carnival of lies. Many many people should resign, and the more you learn the worse it gets

What about all those beta cucks working at The Spectator whose editor was part of this carnival of lies when in government that threatened journalists with prison if they posted this story?

ydoethur · July 16

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The problem Healey has is that Labour kept the super injunction in place for longer than the previous government, so clearly not that troubled.
That aside this absolutely requires a parliamentary inquiry and accountability
Worse. The Labour government appealed AGAINST lifting the super injunction. They wanted it; they liked it

It is a feast of lies inside a carnival of lies. Many many people should resign, and the more you learn the worse it gets

Was it all-nighter or is the booze just very cheap where you are?

wooliedyed · July 16

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes "no apology" for stopping the reporting of a leak that revealed data about thousands of Afghans who had supported British forces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k8yvj89kyo
Did anyone expect him to ?

While there might have been a case for the injunction for a relatively short period of time while damage was assessed (6 months perhaps), there's absolutely no case for keeping this covered up for so long.

Labour were right to review it - but why did it take them an entire year to come to what ought to have been a completely obvious conclusion ?
Did they come to the obvious conclusion?

From the reporting last night, it seems that the Judge made the decision for them, so they never did.
I honestly don't know; the story has only been out for a day.
At least their DefSec has had the grace to admit being troubled by it. That hardly excuses him, but it is a recognition that the issue is serious.

As for Wallace, the original leak ought to have been a clear resignation matter for him - there had been a similar leak earlier, and he had specifically promised that there would be no repetition.
Covering it up via super injunction - and keeping Parliament and electorate blind on contentious political issues throughout an election campaign - is blatantly undemocratic.

Wallace should be condemned across the political spectrum.
The relevant select committee should call both him and John Healey before them immediately.

Apparently, the Speaker has also been involved throughout in ensuring no Parliamentary questions on the matter.
MPs need to question him, and probably sack him. His job is to act for them, not the government.
The problem Healey has is that Labour kept the super injunction in place for longer than the previous government, so clearly not that troubled.
That aside this absolutely requires a parliamentary inquiry and accountability
Worse. The Labour government appealed AGAINST lifting the super injunction. They wanted it; they liked it

It is a feast of lies inside a carnival of lies. Many many people should resign, and the more you learn the worse it gets

Also looks like they increased the funding and scope of the programme once they got in.
Hmmmmm, a trail of deceit and disgrace from Wallace onwards. Full inquiry!

Leon · July 16

One of the most incredible aspects of many incredible aspects of this appalling story

The Afghan scumbag who threatened to go public with the list successfully blackmailed the British government. He forced them to accept him into the UK - and he is now living here with at least 7 of his relatives

https://x.com/stuartkew/status/1945230700333908036?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

algarkirk · July 16

AnneJGP said:

Stuartinromford said:

AnneJGP said:
Horrible to be so pessimistic but I feel there's a dearth of talent everywhere.

Good morning, everybody.
And also with you.

Beyond a certain point, you can't keep blaming the poor buggers who try and fail to run the country well. Maybe the job as currently configured is essentially undoable.

As an analogy, consider a formerly great but currently struggling football team. (I'm from near Portsmouth- I know of what I speak). Changing the manager every five minutes rarely helps and often makes things worse.

If that's what's going on, what's the answer? I don't think that being bought out by some shady foreign squillionaire is an option.
Maybe running the country is undoable at the moment, but I'd feel more hopeful if Labour had entered government with at least a semblance of a plan after all that time in opposition.

Standing back from the present moment for a second, it seems to me that England (W,S and NI are different) has not had what could be described as a fairly complete shut down and replacement since 1066. It is possible to tell a story of a continuing consecutive history without any such sudden replacement in a short time, though one or two later dates may be available, such as the 14th century black death. But it cannot be said of 1485 or the Civil War, or of 1688-90, or 1832 or 1945 and other occasions of great change.

We are therefore the ship of Theseus, not Trigger's broom as a nation. I think this will continue, at least until it doesn't.

Labour leaders? Look elsewhere, except for Streeting. Keep an eye on Torsten Bell, Paul Waugh, Jonathan Reynolds.

JohnLilburne · July 16

ydoethur said:

isam said:
Could she really not have known about this? And what is ‘an huge’ all about?

I am shocked by the secrecy and cover-up over the admission of thousands of Afghans to Britain at the cost of £7bn to the taxpayer. A decision that was in itself wrong.

It is an huge betrayal of public trust.

Those responsible in both Governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account.

thetimes.com/uk/defence/art…

https://x.com/trussliz/status/1945206550089314477?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Technically in formal English 'an huge' is correct, as is 'an hotel' 'an hearing' etc. H was for centuries treated as a silent letter, in effect a glottal stop, so it was common to take the vowel sound from after it (in some dialects it still is, of course).

It's just it's very seldom used as it 'feels' wrong so I'm assuming it's a typo.

(This is your PB crazy fact for this morning.)

An is only correct where the h is in an unaccented syllable, so yes an hotel is correct but it's a hearing.

However if the h in huge is silent, it's pronounced yooge and y counts as a consonant

FF43 · July 16

Mexicanpete said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:
I can’t find much mention of the Afghan story in The Sun. But this is one that will reverberate through WhatsApp and pub chats. Reform going in hard vs Jenrick and Braverman.

https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/1945212705721192806?s=46
This should not be reduced to an anti-immigration hobbyhorse. It's a serious matter of democratic accountability.
Reading between the lines on here, I would conclude that Baldy Ben, who I like and respect (Braverman and Jenrick - I'll just spit that out) did the right and proper thing with 24,000 Afghans who looked after our boys and girls in Helmand. Why Healy with the support of the Speaker kept the injunction going seems to be where the problem lies.

Reform really are a bucket of sh*t for trawling the original safety issue up and turning it onto a skin toned race issue. They are nonetheless welcome to chase down this government for the subsequent cover-up. Healy and Hoyle should be gone!

The right thing done the wrong way would be my take. How outraged should we be by that? Reform don't help their case by implying it was the wrong thing to take in dirty Afghans.

FrancisUrquhart · July 16

Leon said:
One of the most incredible aspects of many incredible aspects of this appalling story

The Afghan scumbag who threatened to go public with the list successfully blackmailed the British government. He forced them to accept him into the UK - and he is now living here with at least 7 of his relatives

https://x.com/stuartkew/status/1945230700333908036?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Probably a leading doctor or scholar, though, no? Or more likely like the senior Hamas commander we took in in a large house funded by the taxpayer.

Life after Starmer – politicalbetting.com

Comments