The Government would save about £40bn (year one) if the Bank of England stopped paying commercial banks interest on their QE holdings. It's absolutely loony for a central bank to give banks a load of money and than pay them interest on it.
The 'argument' I've heard for not stopping this muppetry is that it 'smacks of default' and would spook investors.
But as long as the spend is not reassigned, I think it would actually be seen as a responsible and serious move. The Government would effectively not be borrowing that £40bn.
The commercial banks give the BoE assets in return. It’s not “free money” for the banks but is designed to ensure liquidity in the system
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I win, you lose, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Come on, this deserves a flag, FFS
I tried and it was rejected. Maybe you have many many more flags that have also been rejected. You might have more flags in reality than Epping high street.
*blushes shyly, accepts thrown bouquet of flowers*
Thanks. It's taken me years to reach this: the pinnacle of PB flagdom
And I couldnt have done it without my loyal flag bearers, @IanB2, @bondegezou, @JosiasJessop et al, who have been furiously and futilely flagging me all this time
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I win, you lose, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Come on, this deserves a flag, FFS
It's certainly not getting a like. I note you're nowhere near a 1:1 ratio despite being a ringer on here as a professional writer. Speaks volumes.
As for Nigel he should be proud of that. Gary Lineker was never booked in his entire career. It didn't stop him banging them in.
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I win, you lose, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Who the f*** gave you 44,000 likes? Eadric, LadyG, Byronic?
It would be nice to have a 1:2 ratio for likes to posts, I'm currently at 1:2.14, so I'd now have to run very fast on likes going forwards to claw that back.
Has Dura got the best ratio of any regular? 1:1.1 which is even more impressive as very few people agree with what he says, and plenty of us often have no idea what he is saying.....
Don't know if I count as a regular, but 1.11:1 is pretty good.. I think?
Yebbut you cheated.
Getting yourself badly injured for the sympathy votes is against the rules
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I win, you lose, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Come on, this deserves a flag, FFS
It's certainly not getting a like. I note you're nowhere near a 1:1 ratio despite being a ringer on here as a professional writer. Speaks volumes.
As for Nigel he should be proud of that. Gary Lineker was never booked in his entire career. It didn't stop him banging them in.
He got a red card from Tory Tim Davie mind*.
* And yet in the spirit of straight down the middle BBC impartiality, the dreary Paddy O'Connell is allowed to call all asylum seekers "chancers".
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I win, you lose, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Come on, this deserves a flag, FFS
I tried and it was rejected. Maybe you have many many more flags that have also been rejected. You might have more flags in reality than Epping high street.
*blushes shyly, accepts thrown bouquet of flowers*
Thanks. It's taken me years to reach this: the pinnacle of PB flagdom
And I couldnt have done it without my loyal flag bearers, @IanB2, @bondegezou, @JosiasJessop et al, who have been furiously and futilely flagging me all this time
Thanks, guys
I generally don't flag, and can't recall having flagged you. Even when you deserve it.
But if your paranoia makes you think otherwise, you be you.
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
Supposedly if you see a post that's dodgy for some reason, you can flag it. I wouldn't do it except if someone posted something that's libellous, since it sends an email to OGH and it's not really on to bother them unless it's serious.
"A former contestant on The Apprentice has abandoned her Luton residence after receiving death threats for her public criticism of extremism within British Muslim Pakistani communities.
Lubna Zaidi, who identifies as a British Muslim of Pakistani heritage, established a YouTube channel to discuss controversial topics including grooming gangs, honour killings and misogyny within her community."
"Angela Rayner adds to property empire with £850k holiday home"
From the Telegraph is pretty stupid
A house in Manchester is not a property empire
Its pure clickbait.
Although… a £375k “main home” vs a £850k “holiday home” suggests where she is prioritising capital allocation and most likely her long term residence.
£850k for something you will use a few weeks a year is a lot…
Well we know how much trouble she has working out where exactly she lives...
More seriously, she works in London and her boyfriend lives in the South. So I imagine it makes perfectly logical sense to have a nice weekend flat in Brighton.
I don’t have an issue with it. My point was that she probably doesn’t see Manchester as her long term home
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
It would be nice to have a 1:2 ratio for likes to posts, I'm currently at 1:2.14, so I'd now have to run very fast on likes going forwards to claw that back.
Has Dura got the best ratio of any regular? 1:1.1 which is even more impressive as very few people agree with what he says, and plenty of us often have no idea what he is saying.....
Don't know if I count as a regular, but 1.11:1 is pretty good.. I think?
Yebbut you cheated.
Getting yourself badly injured for the sympathy votes is against the rules
😆
In fairness, the "I'm in hospital" card has been played by me on occasion although not, thankfully, recently.
Good Morning one and all. Brighter here now, after a rather dull start, weather-wise!
Case as stated, I don't see that Khan has a problem. His term finishes in May 2028. He doesn't stand again, and applauds (or not, depends who wins) his successor and takes a short holiday. SKS must go to the country before July 2029, so announces, sometime in Spring 2029 that a) the election will be in May and b) that he's not going to stand. Khan is welcomed into his seat and off we go.
So who is Labour’s candidate for PM during the election campaign?
Our Ange, obviously. Khan or Burnham takes over during Labours second term.
And why would she give up power? If she wins she keeps it. If she loses Labour are out of power and I suspect that Burnham/Khan will be passed over for the next generation.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
What in the name of God’s holy burning testicles, is a “plan for change in action”
What does it do? How is it in action? If it’s in action surely it’s no longer a plan?
I sometimes wonder if Starmer’s young social media team is trolling their insufferably pompous boss, by putting out these quietly ridiculous tweets, which ape his inane, vacuous style, but tip them into self-satire
they are fecking useless, bunch of hooray henry twats with no clue about anything
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I win, you lose, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Come on, this deserves a flag, FFS
It's certainly not getting a like. I note you're nowhere near a 1:1 ratio despite being a ringer on here as a professional writer. Speaks volumes.
As for Nigel he should be proud of that. Gary Lineker was never booked in his entire career. It didn't stop him banging them in.
I'm a firm rightwinger who openly mocks the disabled, AKA the PB Commentariat. I'm never going to get 1:1 Likes
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
A "flag" is for naughty posters. Most of mine were for dissing Trump. I got a load (around 30) for calling out Johnson during COVID but there was a clear out a few years ago, and they were thankfully binned!
Beyond the three houses wasn't Rayner also guilty of procuring non-socialist, right wing ear buds? I seem to remember quite a furore on here.
Three houses is an odd move if Angela Rayner wants to succeed Starmer. It puts her on par with Jenrick but he plays for the other side.
Rayner owns a home in her constituency in Ashton-under-Lyne, which she bought in 2016 for £375,000. She also makes use of a grace-and-favour ministerial apartment in Admiralty House (which she doesn't own) when she is in Westminster. She's now bought a holiday home on the South Coast.
And the Mail, Sun, Express and even the Times have gone bananas over it. Uppity woman. Doesn't she know her place. Telegraph - "Angela Rayner adds to property empire."
That's not really the point. In order to succeed Keir Starmer, Rayner needs Labour MPs, and perhaps later, party members, to vote for her. She should therefore avoid doing anything that might give them pause.
No views really except to comment that though I have nothing in common at all with Rayner being a middle class One Nation Tory, SFAICS, she has got a touch of something really likeable.
Secondly that, either way round, Farage v Rayner at PMQs would have us queueing round the block. Proper box office. Better even than the underused and underrated Angela Eagle in her prime, or Hague.
It would be nice to have a 1:2 ratio for likes to posts, I'm currently at 1:2.14, so I'd now have to run very fast on likes going forwards to claw that back.
Has Dura got the best ratio of any regular? 1:1.1 which is even more impressive as very few people agree with what he says, and plenty of us often have no idea what he is saying.....
OLB rules ok on this metric, I think.
It is, tbf, easier to get a high likes to posts ratio if you post regularly but not extensively - as both DA and OLB do.
It's a bit like with musicians. Both of those two are outsold in gross PB terms by mass market artists (like CR and indeed me) but you find a higher proportion of critically acclaimed gems in their ouvre. It's the 'commercial success v cult appeal' dynamic. Either is desirable but you can't have both
So pursuing this analogy possibly too far I am Coldplay, CR is Ed Sheeran, OLB is Iggy Pop and DA is Kate Bush.
Does a 1 to over 1.2 ratio make someone Radiohead? Asking for a friend.
Ooo no. Let's not get carried away. Insufficient releases. You can be Heaven 17.
The big question is, has anybody with a massive catalogue (50k posts +) managed a 1:1 ratio? That's the ultimate.
I’ll take that. Thanks. Maybe us lower level posters with good ratios are the one hit wonders of the site, Chesney Hawkes, Nick Kamen, Tatu.
t.A.T.u. had three top ten singles in the UK.
Must have missed their other two bangers, only remember the lesbian cosplay one for some reason.
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
Supposedly if you see a post that's dodgy for some reason, you can flag it. I wouldn't do it except if someone posted something that's libellous, since it sends an email to OGH and it's not really on to bother them unless it's serious.
Thank you. I don’t think I’ve ever had one and I’ve absolutely no idea how many ‘likes’ I’ve had. Can one look it up somewhere? I really cannot conceive of being bothered to count them!
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
I disagree.
It’s the “vision”.
“A society in which everyone can achieve their full potential” sends a clear message about what the government wants to achieve.
May be no one can disagree (except a few racists and misanthropes) but that doesn’t mean that vision isn’t important
I am. I'm unsure how an National-Front style kidnapping of the flag(s) is supposed to be positive.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
At the heart of it there are at least two things going on:
1 - (Choose your word) right people trying to embed themselves in a wider movement that they are animating, very much as happened at the Epping demonstrations, and largely not at the Ashfield ones as the extreme right does not have such a core activist base here. Also see the further right infiltrating Ref UK to use as a platform eg Mark Collett's (of Patriotic Alternative) statements in 2024 to get into the party.
2 - A wider group who see a movement they want to support especially around immigration, who are either happy to be animated by such activists, or are not aware and are following the propaganda.
I was chatting about flags to friends in Huthwaite yesterday as I mentioned last night - they supported Lee Anderson at the last election due to his helping them a little with traveller problems, but are more chary about how this is going.
Hope not Hate have tracked down a few of the figures handing out flags for "Operation Raise the Colours":
Paul Golding @GoldingBF OPERATION RAISE THE COLOURS
Britain First has, so far, donated 75% of its flag stock to local teams in Manchester and the West Midlands for ‘Operation Raise The Colours’. Most of the flags in this photo are now on lampposts and bridges in Manchester and Birmingham! (Photo is of a Britain First Demonstration) https://x.com/GoldingBF/status/1958653930319020316
Patriotism and Nationalism is fine up to the point that it switches from national pride into oppressing others.
I've been observing the IoW scooter rally ride out again this year. Flags and RAF roundels have long been part of scooterist iconography, though also Italian scooters, fashion, Northern Soul, Ska and Two-Tone music. It's all in good fun and a celebration of a curiously British magpie-like subculture. I am almost tempted to acquire a Vespa myself...
A Lambretta was always a cut above.
Lambretta are just a brand licensing operation now and will put the name on any Chinese tat for money.
Vespa are owned by Piaggio (mass production powerhouse) and are a solid product if you like that type of thing.
I had in mind back in the Quadrophenia days. Although Vespa or Lambretta, you'd be mixing your own two stroke and petrol malarkey. So yes the modern Vespa is now the better choice. Although aren't they predominantly Indian rather than Italian made now?
When my kids were 16 I looked at getting a Piaggio Ape 50, but they were incredibly expensive for what they were. So I made them wait until they were 17 and hooked them up with a cat C Fiesta which I bought and repaired for £500.
When I as a teenager I pootled around on a Puch 49cc step-through.
Can this possibly be true? Can the PB Scotch brigade confirm? -
“The Child Winter Heating Payment is: - Provided all the way up to 19 (inc. those on *Adult* Disability Payment) - Given per PERSON, not per household - Available for those in the EEA & Switzerland with "sufficient link" to Scotland - Given automatically with no application needed”
A welfare payment for enduring Scottish winters given to every child, even if you no longer live in Scotland. Or indeed the UK. And even if you’re not a child
If this is true, it becomes less mystifying as to why we’re bankrupt
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I win, you lose, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Come on, this deserves a flag, FFS
It's certainly not getting a like. I note you're nowhere near a 1:1 ratio despite being a ringer on here as a professional writer. Speaks volumes.
As for Nigel he should be proud of that. Gary Lineker was never booked in his entire career. It didn't stop him banging them in.
I'm a firm rightwinger who openly mocks the disabled, AKA the PB Commentariat. I'm never going to get 1:1 Likes
Beyond the three houses wasn't Rayner also guilty of procuring non-socialist, right wing ear buds? I seem to remember quite a furore on here.
Three houses is an odd move if Angela Rayner wants to succeed Starmer. It puts her on par with Jenrick but he plays for the other side.
Rayner owns a home in her constituency in Ashton-under-Lyne, which she bought in 2016 for £375,000. She also makes use of a grace-and-favour ministerial apartment in Admiralty House (which she doesn't own) when she is in Westminster. She's now bought a holiday home on the South Coast.
And the Mail, Sun, Express and even the Times have gone bananas over it. Uppity woman. Doesn't she know her place. Telegraph - "Angela Rayner adds to property empire."
That's not really the point. In order to succeed Keir Starmer, Rayner needs Labour MPs, and perhaps later, party members, to vote for her. She should therefore avoid doing anything that might give them pause.
No views really except to comment that though I have nothing in common at all with Rayner being a middle class One Nation Tory, SFAICS, she has got a touch of something really likeable.
Secondly that, either way round, Farage v Rayner at PMQs would have us queueing round the block. Proper box office. Better even than the underused and underrated Angela Eagle in her prime, or Hague.
Eagle is another duffer
You might want to clarifying that by prefixing "Angela" before Eagle. A cursory misread by a Senior Poster and you could find yourself in hot water.
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
Supposedly if you see a post that's dodgy for some reason, you can flag it. I wouldn't do it except if someone posted something that's libellous, since it sends an email to OGH and it's not really on to bother them unless it's serious.
Thank you. I don’t think I’ve ever had one and I’ve absolutely no idea how many ‘likes’ I’ve had. Can one look it up somewhere? I really cannot conceive of being bothered to count them!
Just click on your username. You have had 12.7k likes.
For true immortal genius, you need as many Likes AND Flags as possible, because that means you are the most provocatively entertaining poster on the site, the one that most people enjoy even as others get furiously wound up
I have 44,000 Likes and 550 Flags
Most of you wankers are on about 7 Flags, or 3, or in some cases you are so dull and inane (naming no names but @Nigelb is an example) literally zero.
I am. I'm unsure how an National-Front style kidnapping of the flag(s) is supposed to be positive.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
At the heart of it there are at least two things going on:
1 - (Choose your word) right people trying to embed themselves in a wider movement that they are animating, very much as happened at the Epping demonstrations, and largely not at the Ashfield ones as the extreme right does not have such a core activist base here. Also see the further right infiltrating Ref UK to use as a platform eg Mark Collett's (of Patriotic Alternative) statements in 2024 to get into the party.
2 - A wider group who see a movement they want to support especially around immigration, who are either happy to be animated by such activists, or are not aware and are following the propaganda.
I was chatting about flags to friends in Huthwaite yesterday as I mentioned last night - they supported Lee Anderson at the last election due to his helping them a little with traveller problems, but are more chary about how this is going.
Hope not Hate have tracked down a few of the figures handing out flags for "Operation Raise the Colours":
Paul Golding @GoldingBF OPERATION RAISE THE COLOURS
Britain First has, so far, donated 75% of its flag stock to local teams in Manchester and the West Midlands for ‘Operation Raise The Colours’. Most of the flags in this photo are now on lampposts and bridges in Manchester and Birmingham! (Photo is of a Britain First Demonstration) https://x.com/GoldingBF/status/1958653930319020316
Patriotism and Nationalism is fine up to the point that it switches from national pride into oppressing others.
I've been observing the IoW scooter rally ride out again this year. Flags and RAF roundels have long been part of scooterist iconography, though also Italian scooters, fashion, Northern Soul, Ska and Two-Tone music. It's all in good fun and a celebration of a curiously British magpie-like subculture. I am almost tempted to acquire a Vespa myself...
A Lambretta was always a cut above.
Lambretta are just a brand licensing operation now and will put the name on any Chinese tat for money.
Vespa are owned by Piaggio (mass production powerhouse) and are a solid product if you like that type of thing.
I had in mind back in the Quadrophenia days. Although Vespa or Lambretta, you'd be mixing your own two stroke and petrol malarkey. So yes the modern Vespa is now the better choice. Although aren't they predominantly Indian rather than Italian made now?
When my kids were 16 I looked at getting a Piaggio Ape 50, but they were incredibly expensive for what they were. So I made them wait until they were 17 and hooked them up with a cat C Fiesta which I bought and repaired for £500.
When I as a teenager I pootled around on a Puch 49cc step-through.
I passed my test on a 50cc Bown. Very rare. Then I bought an old 250cc Velocette.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
I am. I'm unsure how an National-Front style kidnapping of the flag(s) is supposed to be positive.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
At the heart of it there are at least two things going on:
1 - (Choose your word) right people trying to embed themselves in a wider movement that they are animating, very much as happened at the Epping demonstrations, and largely not at the Ashfield ones as the extreme right does not have such a core activist base here. Also see the further right infiltrating Ref UK to use as a platform eg Mark Collett's (of Patriotic Alternative) statements in 2024 to get into the party.
2 - A wider group who see a movement they want to support especially around immigration, who are either happy to be animated by such activists, or are not aware and are following the propaganda.
I was chatting about flags to friends in Huthwaite yesterday as I mentioned last night - they supported Lee Anderson at the last election due to his helping them a little with traveller problems, but are more chary about how this is going.
Hope not Hate have tracked down a few of the figures handing out flags for "Operation Raise the Colours":
Paul Golding @GoldingBF OPERATION RAISE THE COLOURS
Britain First has, so far, donated 75% of its flag stock to local teams in Manchester and the West Midlands for ‘Operation Raise The Colours’. Most of the flags in this photo are now on lampposts and bridges in Manchester and Birmingham! (Photo is of a Britain First Demonstration) https://x.com/GoldingBF/status/1958653930319020316
Patriotism and Nationalism is fine up to the point that it switches from national pride into oppressing others.
I've been observing the IoW scooter rally ride out again this year. Flags and RAF roundels have long been part of scooterist iconography, though also Italian scooters, fashion, Northern Soul, Ska and Two-Tone music. It's all in good fun and a celebration of a curiously British magpie-like subculture. I am almost tempted to acquire a Vespa myself...
A Lambretta was always a cut above.
Lambretta are just a brand licensing operation now and will put the name on any Chinese tat for money.
Vespa are owned by Piaggio (mass production powerhouse) and are a solid product if you like that type of thing.
I had in mind back in the Quadrophenia days. Although Vespa or Lambretta, you'd be mixing your own two stroke and petrol malarkey. So yes the modern Vespa is now the better choice. Although aren't they predominantly Indian rather than Italian made now?
When my kids were 16 I looked at getting a Piaggio Ape 50, but they were incredibly expensive for what they were. So I made them wait until they were 17 and hooked them up with a cat C Fiesta which I bought and repaired for £500.
When I as a teenager I pootled around on a Puch 49cc step-through.
On an economy drive in the late 1990s I recommissioned my wife's old Honda Express to cross Cardiff for work ( I was using a Triumph Stag at the time). A bit like when Bob Monkhouse told his family he wanted to be comedian, like Bob, everyone laughed at me.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
“If the UK were subject to an IMF programme, the spending cuts imposed as a condition would be some £100bn-£150bn, perhaps more. That puts a bit of context on the government's recent failed attempts to cut spending by £3bn.”
This follows a pretty heavyweight Telegraph report - citing senior economists, ex BoE bigwigs - that the UK is headed for IMF bailout territory
Brace
Scaremongering nonsense . Especially as economic growth is likely to be better than expected over the next few months which means Reeves will have less money to find .
Is the government intending on spending loads more money to achieve a bit of growth?
The data so far in August was better than expected . There’s been a strong recovery since April .
Inflation is surging, unemployment is rising, growth is close to zero, the government is the sixth most indebted developed nation on earth
The deficit is huge and growing, public spending is outwith control, the pensions bill is crippling, we have millions of working age people on benefits, the tax burden is the heaviest in seventy years, councils are sliding into bankruptcy, real wages have barely risen in two decades, business investment is stagnant, productivity is among the worst in the OECD, foreign capital and private wealth is fleeing to safer, more dynamic economies, destroying our tax base, even as borrowing costs are through the roof: 30-year gilt yields have surged past 5.6 %, the highest since 1998, and 10-year yields are hovering at an eye watering, crisis-signalling 4.7 %, so that every pound we borrow moves us closer to the cliff edge marked "Greece or Argentina?". Meanwhile our Chancellor literally weeps in parliament because she knows she cannot do the job and we are headed for disaster
But "the data in August was better than expected"
Stop being so miserable! The last GDP data was better than expected and the next one is likely to be better than expected . The UK is not Greece or Argentina .
“If the UK were subject to an IMF programme, the spending cuts imposed as a condition would be some £100bn-£150bn, perhaps more. That puts a bit of context on the government's recent failed attempts to cut spending by £3bn.”
For those of us who have resisted the siren lure of X what are the other 3?
There'll be a rate cut in November; US rates are coming down; QT will be wound down; NIESR black hole forecast is over the top; consumers feeling happier; labour markets far from meltdown.
And private balance sheets are healthy. There have never been so many comfortably off people in the UK as there are now. The problem is the millions who aren't and are locked out of any chance of changing that. It saddens me that closing this gap is a lesser priority for people than creating a hostile environment for migrants and asylum seekers.
Private balance sheets are too healthy, especially corporate ones. We need companies, and asset rich pensioners, spending again.
Asset rich pensioners aren't going to spend the big surplusses they have accumulated. It has to be taxed more and given to poorer pensioners or workets who would spend it.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
if they are going to lose anyway, they might as well start telling the truth and using the October budget in such a way that in 25 years time Reeves will be remembered as the CoE who painfully saved the country with the most honest, radical and reforming budget since Gladstone.
Good Morning one and all. Brighter here now, after a rather dull start, weather-wise!
Case as stated, I don't see that Khan has a problem. His term finishes in May 2028. He doesn't stand again, and applauds (or not, depends who wins) his successor and takes a short holiday. SKS must go to the country before July 2029, so announces, sometime in Spring 2029 that a) the election will be in May and b) that he's not going to stand. Khan is welcomed into his seat and off we go.
So who is Labour’s candidate for PM during the election campaign?
If Khan's successor as Mayor was an MP, Khan could simply win that by-election.
The Government would save about £40bn (year one) if the Bank of England stopped paying commercial banks interest on their QE holdings. It's absolutely loony for a central bank to give banks a load of money and than pay them interest on it.
The 'argument' I've heard for not stopping this muppetry is that it 'smacks of default' and would spook investors.
But as long as the spend is not reassigned, I think it would actually be seen as a responsible and serious move. The Government would effectively not be borrowing that £40bn.
The commercial banks give the BoE assets in return. It’s not “free money” for the banks but is designed to ensure liquidity in the system
Well, if it's not free money, and is given in exchange for assets, there should be no objection to it stopping, and those assets being retained, should there?
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Good Morning one and all. Brighter here now, after a rather dull start, weather-wise!
Case as stated, I don't see that Khan has a problem. His term finishes in May 2028. He doesn't stand again, and applauds (or not, depends who wins) his successor and takes a short holiday. SKS must go to the country before July 2029, so announces, sometime in Spring 2029 that a) the election will be in May and b) that he's not going to stand. Khan is welcomed into his seat and off we go.
So who is Labour’s candidate for PM during the election campaign?
If Khan's successor as Mayor was an MP, Khan could simply win that by-election.
Getting into parliament isn’t the issue
There are 4 scenarios:
- starmer goes before the election: new Labour leader chosen and wins - no room for khan - Starmer goes before election: new Labour leader chosen and loses - Khan could be LOTO not PM - Starmer runs and wins: no vacancy until 2031 at earliest and probably too late for Khan - Starmer runs and loses: Khan could be LOTO not PM
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
if they are going to lose anyway, they might as well start telling the truth and using the October budget in such a way that in 25 years time Reeves will be remembered as the CoE who painfully saved the country with the most honest, radical and reforming budget since Gladstone.
“If the UK were subject to an IMF programme, the spending cuts imposed as a condition would be some £100bn-£150bn, perhaps more. That puts a bit of context on the government's recent failed attempts to cut spending by £3bn.”
This follows a pretty heavyweight Telegraph report - citing senior economists, ex BoE bigwigs - that the UK is headed for IMF bailout territory
Brace
Scaremongering nonsense . Especially as economic growth is likely to be better than expected over the next few months which means Reeves will have less money to find .
Is the government intending on spending loads more money to achieve a bit of growth?
The data so far in August was better than expected . There’s been a strong recovery since April .
Inflation is surging, unemployment is rising, growth is close to zero, the government is the sixth most indebted developed nation on earth
The deficit is huge and growing, public spending is outwith control, the pensions bill is crippling, we have millions of working age people on benefits, the tax burden is the heaviest in seventy years, councils are sliding into bankruptcy, real wages have barely risen in two decades, business investment is stagnant, productivity is among the worst in the OECD, foreign capital and private wealth is fleeing to safer, more dynamic economies, destroying our tax base, even as borrowing costs are through the roof: 30-year gilt yields have surged past 5.6 %, the highest since 1998, and 10-year yields are hovering at an eye watering, crisis-signalling 4.7 %, so that every pound we borrow moves us closer to the cliff edge marked "Greece or Argentina?". Meanwhile our Chancellor literally weeps in parliament because she knows she cannot do the job and we are headed for disaster
But "the data in August was better than expected"
Stop being so miserable! The last GDP data was better than expected and the next one is likely to be better than expected . The UK is not Greece or Argentina .
heading there ever faster though
I wish we were Argentina. They just had greater GDP growth than China.
The Government would save about £40bn (year one) if the Bank of England stopped paying commercial banks interest on their QE holdings. It's absolutely loony for a central bank to give banks a load of money and than pay them interest on it.
The 'argument' I've heard for not stopping this muppetry is that it 'smacks of default' and would spook investors.
But as long as the spend is not reassigned, I think it would actually be seen as a responsible and serious move. The Government would effectively not be borrowing that £40bn.
The commercial banks give the BoE assets in return. It’s not “free money” for the banks but is designed to ensure liquidity in the system
Well, if it's not free money, and is given in exchange for assets, there should be no objection to it stopping, and those assets being retained, should there?
The interest is paid because it is owed.
The bank can stop the programme if it doesn’t need to support liquidity in the banking system
Good Morning one and all. Brighter here now, after a rather dull start, weather-wise!
Case as stated, I don't see that Khan has a problem. His term finishes in May 2028. He doesn't stand again, and applauds (or not, depends who wins) his successor and takes a short holiday. SKS must go to the country before July 2029, so announces, sometime in Spring 2029 that a) the election will be in May and b) that he's not going to stand. Khan is welcomed into his seat and off we go.
So who is Labour’s candidate for PM during the election campaign?
If Khan's successor as Mayor was an MP, Khan could simply win that by-election.
Getting into parliament isn’t the issue
There are 4 scenarios:
- starmer goes before the election: new Labour leader chosen and wins - no room for khan - Starmer goes before election: new Labour leader chosen and loses - Khan could be LOTO not PM - Starmer runs and wins: no vacancy until 2031 at earliest and probably too late for Khan - Starmer runs and loses: Khan could be LOTO not PM
Personally I think Rayner is most likely
But, but does she not have girly bits? I thought Labour didn't really go for that sort of thing.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
(I'm generally in support, but I think the increase in max period of suspended sentences to 3 years from 2 is way too short; it should be 10. Suspended sentences give a strong incentive to behave.
And I think that short suspended sentences may be a good thing to retain ... eg as used for drink or drugged driving, or for serious speeding offences. 14 days in prison suspended for 6 years for 100+mph rather than a 14 day sentence with no continuing element would be a better option imo.)
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
Supposedly if you see a post that's dodgy for some reason, you can flag it. I wouldn't do it except if someone posted something that's libellous, since it sends an email to OGH and it's not really on to bother them unless it's serious.
Thank you. I don’t think I’ve ever had one and I’ve absolutely no idea how many ‘likes’ I’ve had. Can one look it up somewhere? I really cannot conceive of being bothered to count them!
Beyond the three houses wasn't Rayner also guilty of procuring non-socialist, right wing ear buds? I seem to remember quite a furore on here.
Three houses is an odd move if Angela Rayner wants to succeed Starmer. It puts her on par with Jenrick but he plays for the other side.
Rayner owns a home in her constituency in Ashton-under-Lyne, which she bought in 2016 for £375,000. She also makes use of a grace-and-favour ministerial apartment in Admiralty House (which she doesn't own) when she is in Westminster. She's now bought a holiday home on the South Coast.
And the Mail, Sun, Express and even the Times have gone bananas over it. Uppity woman. Doesn't she know her place. Telegraph - "Angela Rayner adds to property empire."
That's not really the point. In order to succeed Keir Starmer, Rayner needs Labour MPs, and perhaps later, party members, to vote for her. She should therefore avoid doing anything that might give them pause.
No views really except to comment that though I have nothing in common at all with Rayner being a middle class One Nation Tory, SFAICS, she has got a touch of something really likeable.
Secondly that, either way round, Farage v Rayner at PMQs would have us queueing round the block. Proper box office. Better even than the underused and underrated Angela Eagle in her prime, or Hague.
Eagle is another duffer
You might want to clarifying that by prefixing "Angela" before Eagle. A cursory misread by a Senior Poster and you could find yourself in hot water.
Are they not a flock though and so impossible to get confused.
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
Supposedly if you see a post that's dodgy for some reason, you can flag it. I wouldn't do it except if someone posted something that's libellous, since it sends an email to OGH and it's not really on to bother them unless it's serious.
Thank you. I don’t think I’ve ever had one and I’ve absolutely no idea how many ‘likes’ I’ve had. Can one look it up somewhere? I really cannot conceive of being bothered to count them!
12,722. You can see it on the page that shows the number of posts.
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
Supposedly if you see a post that's dodgy for some reason, you can flag it. I wouldn't do it except if someone posted something that's libellous, since it sends an email to OGH and it's not really on to bother them unless it's serious.
Thank you. I don’t think I’ve ever had one and I’ve absolutely no idea how many ‘likes’ I’ve had. Can one look it up somewhere? I really cannot conceive of being bothered to count them!
“If the UK were subject to an IMF programme, the spending cuts imposed as a condition would be some £100bn-£150bn, perhaps more. That puts a bit of context on the government's recent failed attempts to cut spending by £3bn.”
This follows a pretty heavyweight Telegraph report - citing senior economists, ex BoE bigwigs - that the UK is headed for IMF bailout territory
Brace
Scaremongering nonsense . Especially as economic growth is likely to be better than expected over the next few months which means Reeves will have less money to find .
Is the government intending on spending loads more money to achieve a bit of growth?
The data so far in August was better than expected . There’s been a strong recovery since April .
Inflation is surging, unemployment is rising, growth is close to zero, the government is the sixth most indebted developed nation on earth
The deficit is huge and growing, public spending is outwith control, the pensions bill is crippling, we have millions of working age people on benefits, the tax burden is the heaviest in seventy years, councils are sliding into bankruptcy, real wages have barely risen in two decades, business investment is stagnant, productivity is among the worst in the OECD, foreign capital and private wealth is fleeing to safer, more dynamic economies, destroying our tax base, even as borrowing costs are through the roof: 30-year gilt yields have surged past 5.6 %, the highest since 1998, and 10-year yields are hovering at an eye watering, crisis-signalling 4.7 %, so that every pound we borrow moves us closer to the cliff edge marked "Greece or Argentina?". Meanwhile our Chancellor literally weeps in parliament because she knows she cannot do the job and we are headed for disaster
But "the data in August was better than expected"
Stop being so miserable! The last GDP data was better than expected and the next one is likely to be better than expected . The UK is not Greece or Argentina .
heading there ever faster though
I wish we were Argentina. They just had greater GDP growth than China.
Growth from a low base isn't necessarily where you want to live. And inflation is around 20%!
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
It's potentially good news for Labour if their main problem is comms rather than stubbornly low economic growth and boxed in public finances. The comms is more short term fixable.
"A former contestant on The Apprentice has abandoned her Luton residence after receiving death threats for her public criticism of extremism within British Muslim Pakistani communities.
Lubna Zaidi, who identifies as a British Muslim of Pakistani heritage, established a YouTube channel to discuss controversial topics including grooming gangs, honour killings and misogyny within her community."
I am. I'm unsure how an National-Front style kidnapping of the flag(s) is supposed to be positive.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
At the heart of it there are at least two things going on:
1 - (Choose your word) right people trying to embed themselves in a wider movement that they are animating, very much as happened at the Epping demonstrations, and largely not at the Ashfield ones as the extreme right does not have such a core activist base here. Also see the further right infiltrating Ref UK to use as a platform eg Mark Collett's (of Patriotic Alternative) statements in 2024 to get into the party.
2 - A wider group who see a movement they want to support especially around immigration, who are either happy to be animated by such activists, or are not aware and are following the propaganda.
I was chatting about flags to friends in Huthwaite yesterday as I mentioned last night - they supported Lee Anderson at the last election due to his helping them a little with traveller problems, but are more chary about how this is going.
Hope not Hate have tracked down a few of the figures handing out flags for "Operation Raise the Colours":
Paul Golding @GoldingBF OPERATION RAISE THE COLOURS
Britain First has, so far, donated 75% of its flag stock to local teams in Manchester and the West Midlands for ‘Operation Raise The Colours’. Most of the flags in this photo are now on lampposts and bridges in Manchester and Birmingham! (Photo is of a Britain First Demonstration) https://x.com/GoldingBF/status/1958653930319020316
Patriotism and Nationalism is fine up to the point that it switches from national pride into oppressing others.
I've been observing the IoW scooter rally ride out again this year. Flags and RAF roundels have long been part of scooterist iconography, though also Italian scooters, fashion, Northern Soul, Ska and Two-Tone music. It's all in good fun and a celebration of a curiously British magpie-like subculture. I am almost tempted to acquire a Vespa myself...
A Lambretta was always a cut above.
Lambretta are just a brand licensing operation now and will put the name on any Chinese tat for money.
Vespa are owned by Piaggio (mass production powerhouse) and are a solid product if you like that type of thing.
I had in mind back in the Quadrophenia days. Although Vespa or Lambretta, you'd be mixing your own two stroke and petrol malarkey. So yes the modern Vespa is now the better choice. Although aren't they predominantly Indian rather than Italian made now?
When my kids were 16 I looked at getting a Piaggio Ape 50, but they were incredibly expensive for what they were. So I made them wait until they were 17 and hooked them up with a cat C Fiesta which I bought and repaired for £500.
When I as a teenager I pootled around on a Puch 49cc step-through.
On an economy drive in the late 1990s I recommissioned my wife's old Honda Express to cross Cardiff for work ( I was using a Triumph Stag at the time). A bit like when Bob Monkhouse told his family he wanted to be comedian, like Bob, everyone laughed at me.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
It's potentially good news for Labour if their main problem is comms rather than stubbornly low economic growth and boxed in public finances. The comms is more short term fixable.
Kemi has the same problem. What does the Conservative Party believe? What is it for?
This is why voters look to NOTA parties like Reform and perhaps increasingly JezTana – at least they have some sort of narrative, and nothing else has worked.
JD Vance: "This is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War 2, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959620851369701496
We all recall FDR boasting of his great relationship with Hitler.
JD Vance: "This is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War 2, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959620851369701496
We all recall FDR boasting of his great relationship with Hitler.
That's quite incredible. And sadly, there will be many who lap up his words.
The Germans did not even get to negotiate where they surrendered, and had to surrender twice.
JD Vance: "This is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War 2, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959620851369701496
We all recall FDR boasting of his great relationship with Hitler.
He is correct in a way, it’s just that a lot of these negotiations were “do you accept these brutal terms where you lose your land and ways of life or do you want to fight until you are all wiped out?”. He might be able to find one of the remaining Native Americans to check how that works out.
JD Vance: "This is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War 2, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959620851369701496
We all recall FDR boasting of his great relationship with Hitler.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
It's potentially good news for Labour if their main problem is comms rather than stubbornly low economic growth and boxed in public finances. The comms is more short term fixable.
Kemi has the same problem. What does the Conservative Party believe? What is it for?
This is why voters look to NOTA parties like Reform and perhaps increasingly JezTana – at least they have some sort of narrative, and nothing else has worked.
Yep. Very true. But what if the only honest positive message can be "we'll work hard, won't be corrupt, try and improve things a little"?
JD Vance: "This is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War 2, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959620851369701496
We all recall FDR boasting of his great relationship with Hitler.
Reposting JD should be an automatic flag.
As Leon pointed out, we are seeing more speculation that President Trump is in physical as well as mental decline. Now, we need to take all this with a pinch of salt but we should not rule out President Vance before 2029.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
It's potentially good news for Labour if their main problem is comms rather than stubbornly low economic growth and boxed in public finances. The comms is more short term fixable.
Kemi has the same problem. What does the Conservative Party believe? What is it for?
This is why voters look to NOTA parties like Reform and perhaps increasingly JezTana – at least they have some sort of narrative, and nothing else has worked.
Indeed. But they get a slight pass for two reasons:
*) They'd been in power for 15 years, and every government that gets a shellacking after that long in power needs to retreat and reinvent itself. Though I'm unsure Kemi will have much more success than Hague or Miliband did.
*) Labour are in power. They are in control; they get the blame. That is where messaging matters most.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
It's potentially good news for Labour if their main problem is comms rather than stubbornly low economic growth and boxed in public finances. The comms is more short term fixable.
Kemi has the same problem. What does the Conservative Party believe? What is it for?
This is why voters look to NOTA parties like Reform and perhaps increasingly JezTana – at least they have some sort of narrative, and nothing else has worked.
Yep. Very true. But what if the only honest positive message can be "we'll work hard, won't be corrupt, try and improve things a little"?
It rarely is, not least because there is not often a consensus about what are the sunlit uplands.
Beyond the three houses wasn't Rayner also guilty of procuring non-socialist, right wing ear buds? I seem to remember quite a furore on here.
Three houses is an odd move if Angela Rayner wants to succeed Starmer. It puts her on par with Jenrick but he plays for the other side.
Rayner owns a home in her constituency in Ashton-under-Lyne, which she bought in 2016 for £375,000. She also makes use of a grace-and-favour ministerial apartment in Admiralty House (which she doesn't own) when she is in Westminster. She's now bought a holiday home on the South Coast.
And the Mail, Sun, Express and even the Times have gone bananas over it. Uppity woman. Doesn't she know her place. Telegraph - "Angela Rayner adds to property empire."
Jenrick has three that belong to him (or it could be 4).
Which of these tabloids have made a front page story of that?
Why’s that so important to you ? Deflection from Saint Ange. It’s not a binary choice.
She’s lamenting a shortage of housing, while in charge of it. She’s a hypocrite.
Just back from the toon. Visited the quayside market and the Newcastle Mela. The Mela was ace. All races and people together enjoying food and music in a lovely environment. Great fun. Some lovely street food.
I also didn’t see many flags but I didn’t look for them. I did see on pb earlier people reporting flags sightings which, by some happy coincidence, aligned with their view of the issue. PB at its best.
I know about getting a ‘like’ but is getting a ‘flag’’ good or bad, and why does one get one?
Supposedly if you see a post that's dodgy for some reason, you can flag it. I wouldn't do it except if someone posted something that's libellous, since it sends an email to OGH and it's not really on to bother them unless it's serious.
Thank you. I don’t think I’ve ever had one and I’ve absolutely no idea how many ‘likes’ I’ve had. Can one look it up somewhere? I really cannot conceive of being bothered to count them!
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
It's potentially good news for Labour if their main problem is comms rather than stubbornly low economic growth and boxed in public finances. The comms is more short term fixable.
I’m sure improving their comms will make everyone realise they’ve never had it so good.
“If the UK were subject to an IMF programme, the spending cuts imposed as a condition would be some £100bn-£150bn, perhaps more. That puts a bit of context on the government's recent failed attempts to cut spending by £3bn.”
This follows a pretty heavyweight Telegraph report - citing senior economists, ex BoE bigwigs - that the UK is headed for IMF bailout territory
Brace
Scaremongering nonsense . Especially as economic growth is likely to be better than expected over the next few months which means Reeves will have less money to find .
Is the government intending on spending loads more money to achieve a bit of growth?
The data so far in August was better than expected . There’s been a strong recovery since April .
Inflation is surging, unemployment is rising, growth is close to zero, the government is the sixth most indebted developed nation on earth
The deficit is huge and growing, public spending is outwith control, the pensions bill is crippling, we have millions of working age people on benefits, the tax burden is the heaviest in seventy years, councils are sliding into bankruptcy, real wages have barely risen in two decades, business investment is stagnant, productivity is among the worst in the OECD, foreign capital and private wealth is fleeing to safer, more dynamic economies, destroying our tax base, even as borrowing costs are through the roof: 30-year gilt yields have surged past 5.6 %, the highest since 1998, and 10-year yields are hovering at an eye watering, crisis-signalling 4.7 %, so that every pound we borrow moves us closer to the cliff edge marked "Greece or Argentina?". Meanwhile our Chancellor literally weeps in parliament because she knows she cannot do the job and we are headed for disaster
But "the data in August was better than expected"
Stop being so miserable! The last GDP data was better than expected and the next one is likely to be better than expected . The UK is not Greece or Argentina .
heading there ever faster though
I wish we were Argentina. They just had greater GDP growth than China.
Growth from a low base isn't necessarily where you want to live. And inflation is around 20%!
Argentina had inflation of 266% a year ago so are actually getting it under control.
“If the UK were subject to an IMF programme, the spending cuts imposed as a condition would be some £100bn-£150bn, perhaps more. That puts a bit of context on the government's recent failed attempts to cut spending by £3bn.”
This follows a pretty heavyweight Telegraph report - citing senior economists, ex BoE bigwigs - that the UK is headed for IMF bailout territory
Brace
Scaremongering nonsense . Especially as economic growth is likely to be better than expected over the next few months which means Reeves will have less money to find .
Is the government intending on spending loads more money to achieve a bit of growth?
The data so far in August was better than expected . There’s been a strong recovery since April .
Inflation is surging, unemployment is rising, growth is close to zero, the government is the sixth most indebted developed nation on earth
The deficit is huge and growing, public spending is outwith control, the pensions bill is crippling, we have millions of working age people on benefits, the tax burden is the heaviest in seventy years, councils are sliding into bankruptcy, real wages have barely risen in two decades, business investment is stagnant, productivity is among the worst in the OECD, foreign capital and private wealth is fleeing to safer, more dynamic economies, destroying our tax base, even as borrowing costs are through the roof: 30-year gilt yields have surged past 5.6 %, the highest since 1998, and 10-year yields are hovering at an eye watering, crisis-signalling 4.7 %, so that every pound we borrow moves us closer to the cliff edge marked "Greece or Argentina?". Meanwhile our Chancellor literally weeps in parliament because she knows she cannot do the job and we are headed for disaster
But "the data in August was better than expected"
Stop being so miserable! The last GDP data was better than expected and the next one is likely to be better than expected . The UK is not Greece or Argentina .
heading there ever faster though
I wish we were Argentina. They just had greater GDP growth than China.
Growth from a low base isn't necessarily where you want to live. And inflation is around 20%!
Argentina had inflation of 266% a year ago so are actually getting it under control.
Indeed. But economic records are best judged from ten years' hence. It is relatively easy to create a short-term economic bubble; to truly change an economy for the better is much harder.
However, Argentina is starting from such a low base, and they face so many problems, I wish them luck.
I can’t believe the new thread isn’t about Starmer’s latest tweet. I know he’s normally quite dull, but this one is potentially a game changer. Maybe they are finally taking things seriously in Labour HQ?
I don’t know why, but this feels qualitatively different. New. Urgent.
Just read it:
“I want every young person to have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
From training to apprenticeships, my government is building Britain’s future by investing in the next generation.
Here's the problem - that is a worthy policy goal. Other things have also been worthy - a wholesale makeover of NHS England as an example.
But nobody notices or cares because there is no vision.
"I want every young person to realise their full potential" - why? What goals are we chasing?
I have No Clue what this government wants for Britain.
That’s a little harsh. “Every young person [realising] their full potential” is a worthwhile goal in itself
Of course it is. But all interesting and relavant political utterances are about the fact that to govern is to choose. Some of the choices are about universal aspirations such as the potential of young people, where to support its opposite is nonsense, but they are still choices between different routes and different meanings.
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
Starmer's grotesque train smash of a Government makes a lot more sense if you realise Labour never wanted to be in government at this stage in the cycle. They wanted another 5 years of fag-end Tories, hamstrung by the blob and their own lack of parliamentary unity, allowing Labour to blame all the country's problems on Brexit/Tories then Wes Streeting comes in after Starmer's respectable opposition performance and returns a grateful nation to the bossom of the EU (don't mention the incoming invoice).
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
No. That is very silly and not true. Parties generally want to win the elections they fight!
Indeed. Labour wanted to win. True, they've been handed a very poor inheritance, but they'd still like control of it.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
Some governments have enjoyed longer honeymoons, but the rise of Reform UK (and to a lesser extent the LibDems and Greens) have perhaps given people alternatives sooner.
That hasn't helped.
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
It's potentially good news for Labour if their main problem is comms rather than stubbornly low economic growth and boxed in public finances. The comms is more short term fixable.
Kemi has the same problem. What does the Conservative Party believe? What is it for?
This is why voters look to NOTA parties like Reform and perhaps increasingly JezTana – at least they have some sort of narrative, and nothing else has worked.
Yep. Very true. But what if the only honest positive message can be "we'll work hard, won't be corrupt, try and improve things a little"?
It rarely is, not least because there is not often a consensus about what are the sunlit uplands.
Perhaps I'm getting a bit too 'old man of the sea' but any political promise of sunlit uplands has me reaching for the remote. My egalitarian vision is not electable so I just want competent non-corrupt mainstream politicians who try and promote the better side of human nature.
“If the UK were subject to an IMF programme, the spending cuts imposed as a condition would be some £100bn-£150bn, perhaps more. That puts a bit of context on the government's recent failed attempts to cut spending by £3bn.”
This follows a pretty heavyweight Telegraph report - citing senior economists, ex BoE bigwigs - that the UK is headed for IMF bailout territory
Brace
Scaremongering nonsense . Especially as economic growth is likely to be better than expected over the next few months which means Reeves will have less money to find .
Is the government intending on spending loads more money to achieve a bit of growth?
The data so far in August was better than expected . There’s been a strong recovery since April .
Inflation is surging, unemployment is rising, growth is close to zero, the government is the sixth most indebted developed nation on earth
The deficit is huge and growing, public spending is outwith control, the pensions bill is crippling, we have millions of working age people on benefits, the tax burden is the heaviest in seventy years, councils are sliding into bankruptcy, real wages have barely risen in two decades, business investment is stagnant, productivity is among the worst in the OECD, foreign capital and private wealth is fleeing to safer, more dynamic economies, destroying our tax base, even as borrowing costs are through the roof: 30-year gilt yields have surged past 5.6 %, the highest since 1998, and 10-year yields are hovering at an eye watering, crisis-signalling 4.7 %, so that every pound we borrow moves us closer to the cliff edge marked "Greece or Argentina?". Meanwhile our Chancellor literally weeps in parliament because she knows she cannot do the job and we are headed for disaster
But "the data in August was better than expected"
Stop being so miserable! The last GDP data was better than expected and the next one is likely to be better than expected . The UK is not Greece or Argentina .
heading there ever faster though
I wish we were Argentina. They just had greater GDP growth than China.
Growth from a low base isn't necessarily where you want to live. And inflation is around 20%!
Argentina had inflation of 266% a year ago so are actually getting it under control.
The state of the Argentine economy is now Somewhat Dire.
Previously it was F^%ked Like A Maritime Infrastructure Socialisation Professional.
By the end of the year we will know if, by a miracle, it has moved to Just A Bit Shit in Places.
Comments
Thanks. It's taken me years to reach this: the pinnacle of PB flagdom
And I couldnt have done it without my loyal flag bearers, @IanB2, @bondegezou, @JosiasJessop et al, who have been furiously and futilely flagging me all this time
Thanks, guys
Expressing the universal aspiration as if it is clever or important isn't wise.
As for Nigel he should be proud of that. Gary Lineker was never booked in his entire career. It didn't stop him banging them in.
Getting yourself badly injured for the sympathy votes is against the rules
😆
* And yet in the spirit of straight down the middle BBC impartiality, the dreary Paddy O'Connell is allowed to call all asylum seekers "chancers".
But if your paranoia makes you think otherwise, you be you.
Eg your one and only 'flag' is where you say you'd miss Leon because he can be quite amusing.
So that's a very good example.
Yet despite this I've got 40,000, AND 550 Flags
*air punch*
You started this, lol
Anyway, you might find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HL-N9oOjcs familiar if you watch it.
I like "Robot", criminally left off their English-language debut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP1GcK2-TK0 (Warning: translating the lyrics may fall foul of the OSA.)
It’s the “vision”.
“A society in which everyone can achieve their full potential” sends a clear message about what the government wants to achieve.
May be no one can disagree (except a few racists and misanthropes) but that doesn’t mean that vision isn’t important
Sadly they have now been placed in a situation of having to convince everyone that Britain is shit, falling apart, and needs the EU, whilst also being the Government responsible for its state. "It was the Tories" seems to have lost all currency long before its theoretical sell-by date due to the April budget and the way it imploded. So all the crapness of everything is coming home to roost with Labour.
Who knows how long they'll be gone after this, and if they will ever return.
When I was a kid Fizzies were all the rage.
The "train smash of a government" (which is still better than what we had from 2020 to 2024...) is such, in part, because of that inheritance, but also because they are not very good at government. In particular, saying "the lot in power are cr@p, aren't they?" may win you an election, but it's no good when you are in power...
There are 4 scenarios:
- starmer goes before the election: new Labour leader chosen and wins - no room for khan
- Starmer goes before election: new Labour leader chosen and loses - Khan could be LOTO not PM
- Starmer runs and wins: no vacancy until 2031 at earliest and probably too late for Khan
- Starmer runs and loses: Khan could be LOTO not PM
Personally I think Rayner is most likely
Can I have some of what he’s having?
The bank can stop the programme if it doesn’t need to support liquidity in the banking system
But their core problem is that the government either have no message, or no-one with the ability to sell that message. And that means when the Farage Party comes along with a message - however stupid that message might be - it can gain adherents.
Starmer really needs a message, and a team around him to sell that message.
I have zero idea what the current Labour government is *for*. They can no longer define themselves as not being the government that is screwing things up.
Ministers will legislate next month to abolish most short prison sentences, toughen up community punishments and introduce a Texas-inspired system whereby inmates can earn early release as part of an attempt to avert another prison crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/aug/24/labour-abolish-most-short-prison-sentences-england-wales
(I'm generally in support, but I think the increase in max period of suspended sentences to 3 years from 2 is way too short; it should be 10. Suspended sentences give a strong incentive to behave.
And I think that short suspended sentences may be a good thing to retain ... eg as used for drink or drugged driving, or for serious speeding offences. 14 days in prison suspended for 6 years for 100+mph rather than a 14 day sentence with no continuing element would be a better option imo.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APIaW2qkSFc&t=832s
This is why voters look to NOTA parties like Reform and perhaps increasingly JezTana – at least they have some sort of narrative, and nothing else has worked.
JD Vance: "This is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War 2, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959620851369701496
We all recall FDR boasting of his great relationship with Hitler.
The Germans did not even get to negotiate where they surrendered, and had to surrender twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Instrument_of_Surrender
I cannot wait for Putin's surrender in Bucha...
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2025/08/wahoo-bolt-roam-v1-gps-units-reset-20-years-back-become-unusuable.html
I'd have thought after Garmin's earlier problems, rivals would have been all over this.
JD Vance: "I think the Russians have made significant concessions."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1959618769187147922
Is this gaslighting for willing dupes ?
Richard Feynman: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
*) They'd been in power for 15 years, and every government that gets a shellacking after that long in power needs to retreat and reinvent itself. Though I'm unsure Kemi will have much more success than Hague or Miliband did.
*) Labour are in power. They are in control; they get the blame. That is where messaging matters most.
Huge if true.
I also didn’t see many flags but I didn’t look for them. I did see on pb earlier people reporting flags sightings which, by some happy coincidence, aligned with their view of the issue. PB at its best.
We may be doomed, but - kerching - some of us are getting paid for it
So no change then.
However, Argentina is starting from such a low base, and they face so many problems, I wish them luck.
Haven't they got nothing better to do?
I wish it would piss down on them
Or matching his output to the views of his audience.
Previously it was F^%ked Like A Maritime Infrastructure Socialisation Professional.
By the end of the year we will know if, by a miracle, it has moved to Just A Bit Shit in Places.