There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
My approach would be to tighten up the approach to the economy. For example:
1) Stop this insanity of increasing benefit spending by ending the 2 child cap 2) Give nothing to the WASPI graspers 3) Thoroughly kibosh the rarely mentioned but still floating around 'discussion' about reparations 4) Increase the pension age (not immediately but pencil it in) 5) End the triple lock, it's unsustainable as well as being unfair on the working population of the country 6) Commit to a long term reduction of the deficit with a goal of eventually turning it into a small (few percent of GDP) surplus and seek consensus from other parties to maintain that goal, even if the specific path of reaching it might change 7) End all talk of the madness of wealth or exit taxes. Rich people spend a lot, and when they do, they pay VAT. It's never been easier to leave and work elsewhere 8) Increase income tax. I'm not a fan of tax rises, I instinctively prefer lower taxes, but we do need to raise more money and this seems both more straightforward and less harmful than other measures 9) Embark on a simplification of regulations, include taxation and building regulations, to make things easier for individuals and businesses to get things moving 10) Try and find a way to keep new innovations here. Encourage this with tax breaks (in a time-limited period) for setting up factories and the like in the fields of emerging technology. Re-introduce the golden share so we can retain leading innovations and the workers and businesses pay tax here. Perhaps have extra incentives for locating factories etc in the north of England 11) Collaborate closely with Ukraine to encourage both their and our own drone facilities to be built here. Essential for defence with excellent prospects for export
Blimey, I agree with most of that!
Except:
7) I would have some sort way of increasing taxes on the wealthy, maybe through land or property tax. Let's also make sure UK citizens pay their appropriate share of taxes wherever they live. Sure, if they love their country so much less than money, they can give up their UK citizenship.
8) Roll NI into ICT to increase the tax take there rather than just up ICT. Or up ICT and reduce NI as has been mooted.
I'd also add:
12) Tighten the criteria for PIP, especially around mental health (as opposed to mental disabilities like learning difficulties) - use some of the money saved to invest in mental health care services.
The rest is spot on imo.
Re your No. 7, even the US allows their nationals to factor in what they are paying in taxes in the country they are living in so there are allowances and credits and there are double taxation agreements.
What, in your opinion is “their appropriate share of taxes”?
Are you suggesting that the UK would just tax people at the UK rate wherever they are living and paying tax? Why would people keep uk citizenship if they have to pay tax for services they do not remotely use just because the UK can’t manage its spending properly?
So if they do introduce taxation on UK citizens abroad it’s not remotely going to raise the sort of sums you think.
As I have stated on many occasions any such UK FATCA should allow expats to offset the local taxes they pay against their UK tax obligation.
An 'appropriate share' is the same share they would be paying on their income, wealth and capital gains as they would be paying if they lived and worked in the UK.
"Why would people keep uk citizenship if they have to pay tax for services they do not remotely use..."? Well, if they love money so much more than their country, I'd say they can just f*ck-off to whatever other country they fancy / will have them. But... they should not expect to be able to own property in the UK without paying a surcharge for the privilege (that I would charge all foreign owners of UK property); and don't expect to come back here once they get too old, ill, lonely, etc. in whatever country they have fled to.
It may not raise that much, partly because it may discourage people from seeking to avoid tax by fleeing abroad, but fairness is very important. The country doesn't raise a vast amount of tax from me in the great scheme of things, but it's important don't you think that I pay the same taxes as you and everyone else?
Sandpit's idea of 10% makes more sense - after all they're not going to be using services while ex pat - and has the benefit of being far more likely to be paid.
How is it not going to be paid? This is tax we are talking about, failure to pay can result in fines, seized assets and or a prison sentence. So if you don't pay you risk having assets seized, prison upon your return to the UK, extradition in some instances, or perpetual exile.
You answered your own question there.
Sure but if that is the route you are going down you would just become a citizen of another country and revoke your UK citizenship. As I said, I am quite happy for the people who value money about this country to just f*ck right off.
After this on the doctors strike I think he deserves to be favourite. Hard hitting but fair. In fact excellent in every way (its about half way down the page)
Trump declaring "MAGA is what I say it is" has not gone down well.
Was he always this bad and we just didn't see it? I mean I knew he wasn't going to be as conservative as I would like but I never imagined he would be ANTI AMERICAN like this. .. https://x.com/ConservativeG99/status/1988539668145848442
Trump actually pretty sane and sensible there re the South Korean workers arrested.
Having sold his supporters on embracing insanity, the occasional bit of "actually pretty sane and sensible" pisses off his core vote.
And if the electorate want actual sane and sensible, they won't be ticking the GOP box at the next election.
There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
My approach would be to tighten up the approach to the economy. For example:
1) Stop this insanity of increasing benefit spending by ending the 2 child cap 2) Give nothing to the WASPI graspers 3) Thoroughly kibosh the rarely mentioned but still floating around 'discussion' about reparations 4) Increase the pension age (not immediately but pencil it in) 5) End the triple lock, it's unsustainable as well as being unfair on the working population of the country 6) Commit to a long term reduction of the deficit with a goal of eventually turning it into a small (few percent of GDP) surplus and seek consensus from other parties to maintain that goal, even if the specific path of reaching it might change 7) End all talk of the madness of wealth or exit taxes. Rich people spend a lot, and when they do, they pay VAT. It's never been easier to leave and work elsewhere 8) Increase income tax. I'm not a fan of tax rises, I instinctively prefer lower taxes, but we do need to raise more money and this seems both more straightforward and less harmful than other measures 9) Embark on a simplification of regulations, include taxation and building regulations, to make things easier for individuals and businesses to get things moving 10) Try and find a way to keep new innovations here. Encourage this with tax breaks (in a time-limited period) for setting up factories and the like in the fields of emerging technology. Re-introduce the golden share so we can retain leading innovations and the workers and businesses pay tax here. Perhaps have extra incentives for locating factories etc in the north of England 11) Collaborate closely with Ukraine to encourage both their and our own drone facilities to be built here. Essential for defence with excellent prospects for export
Blimey, I agree with most of that!
Except:
7) I would have some sort way of increasing taxes on the wealthy, maybe through land or property tax. Let's also make sure UK citizens pay their appropriate share of taxes wherever they live. Sure, if they love their country so much less than money, they can give up their UK citizenship.
8) Roll NI into ICT to increase the tax take there rather than just up ICT. Or up ICT and reduce NI as has been mooted.
I'd also add:
12) Tighten the criteria for PIP, especially around mental health (as opposed to mental disabilities like learning difficulties) - use some of the money saved to invest in mental health care services.
The rest is spot on imo.
Re your No. 7, even the US allows their nationals to factor in what they are paying in taxes in the country they are living in so there are allowances and credits and there are double taxation agreements.
What, in your opinion is “their appropriate share of taxes”?
Are you suggesting that the UK would just tax people at the UK rate wherever they are living and paying tax? Why would people keep uk citizenship if they have to pay tax for services they do not remotely use just because the UK can’t manage its spending properly?
So if they do introduce taxation on UK citizens abroad it’s not remotely going to raise the sort of sums you think.
As I have stated on many occasions any such UK FATCA should allow expats to offset the local taxes they pay against their UK tax obligation.
An 'appropriate share' is the same share they would be paying on their income, wealth and capital gains as they would be paying if they lived and worked in the UK.
"Why would people keep uk citizenship if they have to pay tax for services they do not remotely use..."? Well, if they love money so much more than their country, I'd say they can just f*ck-off to whatever other country they fancy / will have them. But... they should not expect to be able to own property in the UK without paying a surcharge for the privilege (that I would charge all foreign owners of UK property); and don't expect to come back here once they get too old, ill, lonely, etc. in whatever country they have fled to.
It may not raise that much, partly because it may discourage people from seeking to avoid tax by fleeing abroad, but fairness is very important. The country doesn't raise a vast amount of tax from me in the great scheme of things, but it's important don't you think that I pay the same taxes as you and everyone else?
Sandpit's idea of 10% makes more sense - after all they're not going to be using services while ex pat - and has the benefit of being far more likely to be paid.
How is it not going to be paid? This is tax we are talking about, failure to pay can result in fines, seized assets and or a prison sentence. So if you don't pay you risk having assets seized, prison upon your return to the UK, extradition in some instances, or perpetual exile.
You answered your own question there.
Sure but if that is the route you are going down you would just become a citizen of another country and revoke your UK citizenship. As I said, I am quite happy for the people who value money about this country to just f*ck right off.
Citizens of nowhere....
The bit that you are missing is that many of the people in question are first generation immigrants to the UK. Quite a few don't have UK passports.
There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently.
Total managed expendature is currently ~£1250bn.
The deficit is ~£130bn. In round numbers, that's ~10%.
If you made me the CofE I think I would go for a big bang reset. 10% off everything. 10% reduction in wages for every single person who directly or indirectly works for the government. 10% cut to every kind of benefit including pensions. 10% cut to the health budget.
Oh, and 10% cut in the minimum wage too.
It would be a painful "rip the plaster off" solution. The unions would go nuts, the government would be shockingly unpopular, there would be court cases as far as the eye could see. But - once the dust had settled, we'd have the books balanced, the bond markets would be out of the driving seat, once out of our current doom loop I suspect economic growth would bounce back surprisingly well. By cutting government wages, and benefits you take a lot of pressure off private sectors wages too. You'd knock the bubble out of the housing market, and you'd kill inflation stone dead.
If I did it on day 1 of a 5 year administration and held my nerve, I think by year 5 it would be starting to pay off, and I'd stand a better chance of re-election than Starmer, Reeves and co (who will still be stuck in their tax rasing, economy destroying doomloop if they somehow get that far).
For balance, and from a tax perspective, the UK's deficit is only about 5% of GDP. Our tax burden is 38%, so clearing the deficit would require an increase to about 42% - still significantly lower than France, Denmark, Austria, Italy, Sweden etc etc.
It's not an insurmountable problem at all - and clearing it to 0% isn't necessary anyway. I'd match Germany at about 3% and and a tax burden of 40%.
To put it into perspective the USA is forecasting a budget deficit of $1.74 trillion this year. October was $219 billion deficit. I note that the PB Trumpists seem to think this fine and a formula for growth, while Reeves deficit is a massive drag on the economy. I calculate that US deficit to be roughly equivalent to £260 billion for the UK adjusting for population. Just short of $1 trillion of that deficit is interest on $36 trillion in US national debt.
Deficit spending pumps money into the economy, a sort of temporary sugar rush of growth, which is very much Trump's objective. He doesn't care about the long term. The corollory of this is that fixing the deficit by either tax increases or spending cuts does hit growth in the short term. I would argue that it is the foundation for a sound economy in the long term, but its a hard political sell with an election 42 months away.
From the narrow political perspective the government should keep a substantial deficit, keep the plates spinning, and scorch the earth for the next government, just as it was done to them by Hunt and Sunak.
It's a pattern established in US politics ever since Reagan. The GOP borrows massively, and waits until the Democrats are back in power before demanding fiscal rectitude.
Sounds familiar in the UK too!
It's a far less well established pattern here. The two major parties are equal offenders.
There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently.
Total managed expendature is currently ~£1250bn.
The deficit is ~£130bn. In round numbers, that's ~10%.
If you made me the CofE I think I would go for a big bang reset. 10% off everything. 10% reduction in wages for every single person who directly or indirectly works for the government. 10% cut to every kind of benefit including pensions. 10% cut to the health budget.
Oh, and 10% cut in the minimum wage too.
It would be a painful "rip the plaster off" solution. The unions would go nuts, the government would be shockingly unpopular, there would be court cases as far as the eye could see. But - once the dust had settled, we'd have the books balanced, the bond markets would be out of the driving seat, once out of our current doom loop I suspect economic growth would bounce back surprisingly well. By cutting government wages, and benefits you take a lot of pressure off private sectors wages too. You'd knock the bubble out of the housing market, and you'd kill inflation stone dead.
If I did it on day 1 of a 5 year administration and held my nerve, I think by year 5 it would be starting to pay off, and I'd stand a better chance of re-election than Starmer, Reeves and co (who will still be stuck in their tax rasing, economy destroying doomloop if they somehow get that far).
How about a 1% tax on the estimated £13tn wealth in this country. That comes to, oh, £130bn.
Better still make it progressive. 1% on the first £500k, 1% on the next £1.5m, and whatever percent required to net £130bn on the wealth over £2m.
Alongside a commitment not to borrow.
Logic: we've not been paying our way for many years and we continue not to pay our way. Time for a reckoning.
Funding target for all the worlds developing countries combined to cover climate change impacts: $1.3tn Elon Musk pay deal: $1tn
It is an absurdity that we are so timid in challenging the broligarchs and somehow think this is healthy. It is not typical of the capitalism we grew up with either. The disparity between CEO, middle managers and min wage workers is far bigger than it should be and than it used to be. When the market is inefficient as it is in exec pay, tax is a partial solution.
The challenge with the "Musk just got $1tn that would pay for x" is that he hasn't just been given $1tn. The deal - and I think its absurd - gives him $1tn in options in 10 years if the company achieves multiple laughably large targets. In which case his trillion is dwarfed by the revenue generated and I assume the share price.
Yes I realise. But it is still absurd. In the old days if you wanted to take a 25% share of the companies growth, you would own 25% of the companies shares. Now you sell your shares to middle men holding money on behalf of retail clients, then still demand that you get your 25% of future growth. It is cakeism for Musk, commission for the middle men and a long con on the retail investors.
Only if you can sufficiently convince the shareholders that you're absolutely essential to the company's prospects.
And it's not exactly a typical case; Tesla's capitalisation is required to reach $8.5 trillion for the payout, so it's 15, not 25%; the chances of his succeeding in this are fairly slim anyway.
(I do not own any Tesla shares.)
It is not an all or nothing deal, he will get tens of billions almost regardless.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
Blimey, we'll have an announcement about tidal barrages next.
I notice the small reactor announcement has pissed off the US ambassador, which is a plus in my book.
Why was the ambassador irked?
"The decision to opt for small modular reactors at Wylfa was criticised by the US ambassador Warren Stephens, who said he was "extremely disappointed" by the decision. He had been urging ministers to commit to a large-scale plant, with US firm Westinghouse having reportedly presented plans to build a new gigawatt station at the site."
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Trump declaring "MAGA is what I say it is" has not gone down well.
Was he always this bad and we just didn't see it? I mean I knew he wasn't going to be as conservative as I would like but I never imagined he would be ANTI AMERICAN like this. .. https://x.com/ConservativeG99/status/1988539668145848442
Trump actually pretty sane and sensible there re the South Korean workers arrested.
Having sold his supporters on embracing insanity, the occasional bit of "actually pretty sane and sensible" pisses off his core vote.
And if the electorate want actual sane and sensible, they won't be ticking the GOP box at the next election.
I understand the concerns driving people to support Reform: issues like demographic change, migrant crime, failures to prosecute low-level offences, and even some of the patriotic displays (though personally, I wouldn’t want flags on my nice heritage house; my wife says it would lower the tone, she’s posh and middle class, having been to a private school, while I’m a self-employed council estate lad, salt of the earth). However, when you look through the Reform Facebook and Action pages, it quickly becomes chaotic. Most pages seem to follow a pattern where discussions escalate and ultimately culminate in letter-writing campaigns or petitions asking the King to call a general election.
Journalists getting very excitable about lobbying....
Wait a second. Lobbying registrar says that Allan's firm's clients include British Horseracing Authority - which, I recently revealed, was involved in a completely opaque - in fact, illicit - lobbying campaign paid for by billionaire track-track owners to exempt the industry from higher taxes at the budget.
Treasury sources tell me it succeeded. Reeves: "Each of us must do our bit"... does that include clients of No10 director of comms lobbying shop?
Blimey, we'll have an announcement about tidal barrages next.
I notice the small reactor announcement has pissed off the US ambassador, which is a plus in my book.
Why was the ambassador irked?
"The decision to opt for small modular reactors at Wylfa was criticised by the US ambassador Warren Stephens, who said he was "extremely disappointed" by the decision. He had been urging ministers to commit to a large-scale plant, with US firm Westinghouse having reportedly presented plans to build a new gigawatt station at the site."
The (a?) nuclear bit of Westinghouse was owned by BNFL until Gordon Brown sold to Toshiba in 2005 when he broke up BNFL.
It's more intricate than that, but ... LOL.
A further wrinkle is the that the RR design is based on stretching the power of a sub-reactor - more power in a similar sized package.
This scale up was exactly what the US reactor builders did for the reactors for the aircraft carriers - get several times more power out of very similar design.
The US/UK cooperation on submarines is very deep - among other things, they shared the design for a reactor that can run without pumps at medium power. We shared the design of working pumpjet propulsors (shrouded propellors). When you combine the two, you get a sub that is silent, acoustically, at 20 knots. As opposed to 3 knots, previously.
There's a strong rumour that RR got to look at the designs for aircraft carrier reactors, to prepare bids/proposals for nuclear power for UK vessels (including carriers).
A Supreme Court judgment for the Scottish criminal bar, including DavidL to ponder. I am sure he already is. I would be interested to know what he thinks!
...This judgment is long, very long, but there is the same clarity of thought and reasoning...
It's 62 pages long with ten sections and 192 subsections, and (if AI is correct!) 32,366 words.
By page count it's just under half the length of the Treaty of Lisbon (62 vs 145 pages) if you don't count the protocols and appendices.
By word count it's over twice the length of the Treaty of Lisbon (12,800 words versus 32,366 words) again not counting protocols and appendices and assuming the AI word count is accurate.
There is a limit to how long a document can be before the phrase "clarity of thought and reasoning" becomes untenable.
Plus there's no plain-text version. I know Cyclefree doesn't like them, but we really should be issuing flow charts with these judgements
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
I'd have no problem with funded nursery from day 0 for all - indeed, having grown up around these people putting some of these children in nursery from day 0 would probably improve their life chances.
Trump declaring "MAGA is what I say it is" has not gone down well.
Was he always this bad and we just didn't see it? I mean I knew he wasn't going to be as conservative as I would like but I never imagined he would be ANTI AMERICAN like this. .. https://x.com/ConservativeG99/status/1988539668145848442
Trump actually pretty sane and sensible there re the South Korean workers arrested.
Having sold his supporters on embracing insanity, the occasional bit of "actually pretty sane and sensible" pisses off his core vote.
And if the electorate want actual sane and sensible, they won't be ticking the GOP box at the next election.
I understand the concerns driving people to support Reform: issues like demographic change, migrant crime, failures to prosecute low-level offences, and even some of the patriotic displays (though personally, I wouldn’t want flags on my nice heritage house; my wife says it would lower the tone, she’s posh and middle class, having been to a private school, while I’m a self-employed council estate lad, salt of the earth). However, when you look through the Reform Facebook and Action pages, it quickly becomes chaotic. Most pages seem to follow a pattern where discussions escalate and ultimately culminate in letter-writing campaigns or petitions asking the King to call a general election.
The only thing Reformers have in common is they hate other people. Some of them seem to hate themselves.
The court of appeal ruled on Tuesday that Northamptonshire police were in contempt and had been “willfully disobedient” for repeatedly failing to obey rulings to hand over video to a woman who complained she had been wrongly arrested by three officers.
Nadine Buzzard-Quashie was arrested by Northamptonshire police in September 2021, triggering a four-year saga.
…
The judgment said: “Her account of her arrest … was that she was physically assaulted by the officers who arrested her, she was physically thrown to the ground and had her face pushed into stinging nettles.”
She wanted video footage of her arrest, including from police body-worn cameras, which the force did not provide.
She complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office which made an order that all video should be handed over, which the force ignored, then a county court judge made another order, which the force failed to obey again.
The force told courts it did not have any more video to hand over, then reversed its position at a hearing in October. The court of appeal judgment said: “This means that all the statements made to the court on behalf of the police force prior to mid-October 2025 were false.”
On Tuesday three appeal court judges issued a blistering and unanimous ruling.
Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Fraser said “misleading and untrue statements … have been made to the court on behalf of the chief constable, both to the county court … and also to the court of appeal in relation to the application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself. To list every single statement made on behalf of the chief constable that has proved to be inaccurate over this lengthy period would lengthen this judgment considerably.”
I am shocked by this, I am sure Cyclefree will be too when she reads this story.
The police have a long history of refusing to destroy such material, even after multiple court cases.
There was a big one, a while back, where they refused to destroy DNA samples from innocent people.
The courts told them to do it. The police refused. Not appeal, but outright refused.
This has to be gross misconduct? Stick the chief constable in custody.
The court of appeal ruled on Tuesday that Northamptonshire police were in contempt and had been “willfully disobedient” for repeatedly failing to obey rulings to hand over video to a woman who complained she had been wrongly arrested by three officers.
Nadine Buzzard-Quashie was arrested by Northamptonshire police in September 2021, triggering a four-year saga.
…
The judgment said: “Her account of her arrest … was that she was physically assaulted by the officers who arrested her, she was physically thrown to the ground and had her face pushed into stinging nettles.”
She wanted video footage of her arrest, including from police body-worn cameras, which the force did not provide.
She complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office which made an order that all video should be handed over, which the force ignored, then a county court judge made another order, which the force failed to obey again.
The force told courts it did not have any more video to hand over, then reversed its position at a hearing in October. The court of appeal judgment said: “This means that all the statements made to the court on behalf of the police force prior to mid-October 2025 were false.”
On Tuesday three appeal court judges issued a blistering and unanimous ruling.
Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Fraser said “misleading and untrue statements … have been made to the court on behalf of the chief constable, both to the county court … and also to the court of appeal in relation to the application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself. To list every single statement made on behalf of the chief constable that has proved to be inaccurate over this lengthy period would lengthen this judgment considerably.”
I am shocked by this, I am sure Cyclefree will be too when she reads this story.
The police have a long history of refusing to destroy such material, even after multiple court cases.
There was a big one, a while back, where they refused to destroy DNA samples from innocent people.
The courts told them to do it. The police refused. Not appeal, but outright refused.
This has to be gross misconduct? Stick the chief constable in custody.
The book is indeed The Heart's Invisible Furies by John Boyne. I am loving it. There are some laugh out loud parts and others that want to make you cry.
Trump declaring "MAGA is what I say it is" has not gone down well.
Was he always this bad and we just didn't see it? I mean I knew he wasn't going to be as conservative as I would like but I never imagined he would be ANTI AMERICAN like this. .. https://x.com/ConservativeG99/status/1988539668145848442
Trump actually pretty sane and sensible there re the South Korean workers arrested.
Having sold his supporters on embracing insanity, the occasional bit of "actually pretty sane and sensible" pisses off his core vote.
And if the electorate want actual sane and sensible, they won't be ticking the GOP box at the next election.
I understand the concerns driving people to support Reform: issues like demographic change, migrant crime, failures to prosecute low-level offences, and even some of the patriotic displays (though personally, I wouldn’t want flags on my nice heritage house; my wife says it would lower the tone, she’s posh and middle class, having been to a private school, while I’m a self-employed council estate lad, salt of the earth). However, when you look through the Reform Facebook and Action pages, it quickly becomes chaotic. Most pages seem to follow a pattern where discussions escalate and ultimately culminate in letter-writing campaigns or petitions asking the King to call a general election.
The only thing Reformers have in common is they hate other people. Some of them seem to hate themselves.
But, if a Refomer is what Big Nige says a Reformer is, he will be in for a shock. Nige is an old school Thaterite but likes to show leg to get what he wants, he mixes it with a reactionary flare that many hold their nose at. Don't blame him for pointing out the problems though..
The court of appeal ruled on Tuesday that Northamptonshire police were in contempt and had been “willfully disobedient” for repeatedly failing to obey rulings to hand over video to a woman who complained she had been wrongly arrested by three officers.
Nadine Buzzard-Quashie was arrested by Northamptonshire police in September 2021, triggering a four-year saga.
…
The judgment said: “Her account of her arrest … was that she was physically assaulted by the officers who arrested her, she was physically thrown to the ground and had her face pushed into stinging nettles.”
She wanted video footage of her arrest, including from police body-worn cameras, which the force did not provide.
She complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office which made an order that all video should be handed over, which the force ignored, then a county court judge made another order, which the force failed to obey again.
The force told courts it did not have any more video to hand over, then reversed its position at a hearing in October. The court of appeal judgment said: “This means that all the statements made to the court on behalf of the police force prior to mid-October 2025 were false.”
On Tuesday three appeal court judges issued a blistering and unanimous ruling.
Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Fraser said “misleading and untrue statements … have been made to the court on behalf of the chief constable, both to the county court … and also to the court of appeal in relation to the application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself. To list every single statement made on behalf of the chief constable that has proved to be inaccurate over this lengthy period would lengthen this judgment considerably.”
I am shocked by this, I am sure Cyclefree will be too when she reads this story.
It’s pretty unusual for the CC to be found guilty of contempt, no?
Presumably the man himself is now going to have to show up at the court of appeal, to explain his force’s behaviour in the case?
My friend’s sister is suing GMP over an unreasonable strip search and other issues, guess what, all the video footage from the officers at the arrest and at the police station was either not working or deleted.
What were the odds?
When they shot DeMendes, the CCTV for the specific area of the incident was broken.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently.
Total managed expendature is currently ~£1250bn.
The deficit is ~£130bn. In round numbers, that's ~10%.
If you made me the CofE I think I would go for a big bang reset. 10% off everything. 10% reduction in wages for every single person who directly or indirectly works for the government. 10% cut to every kind of benefit including pensions. 10% cut to the health budget.
Oh, and 10% cut in the minimum wage too.
It would be a painful "rip the plaster off" solution. The unions would go nuts, the government would be shockingly unpopular, there would be court cases as far as the eye could see. But - once the dust had settled, we'd have the books balanced, the bond markets would be out of the driving seat, once out of our current doom loop I suspect economic growth would bounce back surprisingly well. By cutting government wages, and benefits you take a lot of pressure off private sectors wages too. You'd knock the bubble out of the housing market, and you'd kill inflation stone dead.
If I did it on day 1 of a 5 year administration and held my nerve, I think by year 5 it would be starting to pay off, and I'd stand a better chance of re-election than Starmer, Reeves and co (who will still be stuck in their tax rasing, economy destroying doomloop if they somehow get that far).
How about a 1% tax on the estimated £13tn wealth in this country. That comes to, oh, £130bn.
Better still make it progressive. 1% on the first £500k, 1% on the next £1.5m, and whatever percent required to net £130bn on the wealth over £2m.
Alongside a commitment not to borrow.
Logic: we've not been paying our way for many years and we continue not to pay our way. Time for a reckoning.
Funding target for all the worlds developing countries combined to cover climate change impacts: $1.3tn Elon Musk pay deal: $1tn
It is an absurdity that we are so timid in challenging the broligarchs and somehow think this is healthy. It is not typical of the capitalism we grew up with either. The disparity between CEO, middle managers and min wage workers is far bigger than it should be and than it used to be. When the market is inefficient as it is in exec pay, tax is a partial solution.
The challenge with the "Musk just got $1tn that would pay for x" is that he hasn't just been given $1tn. The deal - and I think its absurd - gives him $1tn in options in 10 years if the company achieves multiple laughably large targets. In which case his trillion is dwarfed by the revenue generated and I assume the share price.
Yes I realise. But it is still absurd. In the old days if you wanted to take a 25% share of the companies growth, you would own 25% of the companies shares. Now you sell your shares to middle men holding money on behalf of retail clients, then still demand that you get your 25% of future growth. It is cakeism for Musk, commission for the middle men and a long con on the retail investors.
Only if you can sufficiently convince the shareholders that you're absolutely essential to the company's prospects.
And it's not exactly a typical case; Tesla's capitalisation is required to reach $8.5 trillion for the payout, so it's 15, not 25%; the chances of his succeeding in this are fairly slim anyway.
(I do not own any Tesla shares.)
It is not an all or nothing deal, he will get tens of billions almost regardless.
Oh, I don't disagree. It's just that I don't like hyperbole.
Months back I identified Streeting as Labour's Liz Truss...
Labour's Truss would be if SKS goes and the members pick somebody from the ideological Left who makes them feel good but is clueless and incompetent. Streeting, like him or not, doesn't fit the bill.
There's always Ed Milliband...
Now you're talking. If the goal is apoplexy at the TeleMail - and there are worse goals let's face it - that's the way to go. After all these years, fully a decade after we missed the chance, we can finally have "chaos with Ed Miliband".
You may scoff but...
On thread, at 16/1 Ed Miliband is a very good value bet in this market (Streeting is 11/2). He is by some way the most popular Cabinet minister amongst Labour members at a +71% net approval (using Labour List rankings as a close proxy) compared to Streeting who has +17% (still well ahead of Starmer on -11%!!) Miliband is close politically to Burnham and part of the same Mainstream grouping. He has a decent chance of getting the support of 20% of Labour MPs as the soft left candidate to stand against Starmer in a leadership contest, not least because he'll be viewed as the best placed candidate to beat Streeting.
It doesn't matter to the Labour selectorate that Miliband's popularity with the membership is not echoed amongst the general public, although I think that anyone who moves against Starmer will pick up some credit with the public in the present climate. Miliband is also well placed to court support from those who have switched allegiance to the Greens or Lib Dems which is the group from which Labour really needs to win back support under new leadership.
He's also clearly interested in standing. There was no particular imperative for him to weigh in today to publically echo Streeting's call for the No 10 briefers to be sacked, but he's chosen to do so anyway, which helps keep him in the frame.
Several videos online of plastic patriots in Worcester putting up Temu flags with cable ties on lampposts. Abusive to old guy whose land is millimetres from one lamppost. And patronising to a woman.
Entertainingly the plastic patriot starts talking about how taking their flag down would be "theft". No luv, you're putting it up illegally. Taking it down is not "theft".
And of course the patriot is cable tying the flag to the lamppost upside down. Because of course he is.
Flags up in Derbyshire notably in Lee Anderson's constituency but in Amber Valley too and said flags soon looking bedraggled with a drop or two of rain. Far more impressive were the poppies on lamp posts in Belper, Matlock and other towns.
You talk to the locals and many of them are clearly worried about "the migrants" yet where they are they never see one. They ought to try a few days in East Ham if they want to see a more cosmopolitan Britain.
Your second point is very pertinent.
As I see it, the Lee Anderson type politics work in places where people have likely never met an immigrant - so they can make assumptions with no counter-evidence, or there are so many immigrants that they feel, at first reaction, frightened.
That unfortunately is incentivising a politics driving division and demonisation, which we need to undermine over time.
The incident I cite above of Lee Anderson's invention of an asylum hotel out of thin air, when as taxpayers we supply him with 5 or more office staff so he can find out what is true before riding out on social media like a tin pot St George selling bullshit, illustrates. He thinks he can benefit from keeping his supporters angry and frightened. Plus there is a politics around "two tier" justice, and the rest.
I think part of the answer is creating local cross links at different levels. Here I have a local Mosque, but it is in Mansfield 5 miles away and has quite a few of refugees from the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar there.
Back in the earl 1990s I was involved at the edge of an initiative in Nottingham called the Christian-Muslim forum, run by a University Chaplain and a local Imam, which was such an engagement at "intellectual" level. Each month there would be a meeting on a particular topic with a speaker from each side, reactions and a plenary.
Several videos online of plastic patriots in Worcester putting up Temu flags with cable ties on lampposts. Abusive to old guy whose land is millimetres from one lamppost. And patronising to a woman.
Entertainingly the plastic patriot starts talking about how taking their flag down would be "theft". No luv, you're putting it up illegally. Taking it down is not "theft".
And of course the patriot is cable tying the flag to the lamppost upside down. Because of course he is.
Flags up in Derbyshire notably in Lee Anderson's constituency but in Amber Valley too and said flags soon looking bedraggled with a drop or two of rain. Far more impressive were the poppies on lamp posts in Belper, Matlock and other towns.
You talk to the locals and many of them are clearly worried about "the migrants" yet where they are they never see one. They ought to try a few days in East Ham if they want to see a more cosmopolitan Britain.
Your second point is very pertinent.
As I see it, the Lee Anderson type politics work in places where people have likely never met an immigrant - so they can make assumptions with no counter-evidence, or there are so many immigrants that they feel, at first reaction, frightened.
That unfortunately is incentivising a politics driving division and demonisation, which we need to undermine over time.
The incident I cite above of Lee Anderson's invention of an asylum hotel out of thin air, when as taxpayers we supply him with 5 or more office staff so he can find out what is true before riding out on social media like a tin pot St George selling bullshit, illustrates.
It's the weaponisation of ignorance, pure and simple. Unfortunately, ignorance seems to be one of our few real growth industries.
There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently.
Total managed expendature is currently ~£1250bn.
The deficit is ~£130bn. In round numbers, that's ~10%.
If you made me the CofE I think I would go for a big bang reset. 10% off everything. 10% reduction in wages for every single person who directly or indirectly works for the government. 10% cut to every kind of benefit including pensions. 10% cut to the health budget.
Oh, and 10% cut in the minimum wage too.
It would be a painful "rip the plaster off" solution. The unions would go nuts, the government would be shockingly unpopular, there would be court cases as far as the eye could see. But - once the dust had settled, we'd have the books balanced, the bond markets would be out of the driving seat, once out of our current doom loop I suspect economic growth would bounce back surprisingly well. By cutting government wages, and benefits you take a lot of pressure off private sectors wages too. You'd knock the bubble out of the housing market, and you'd kill inflation stone dead.
If I did it on day 1 of a 5 year administration and held my nerve, I think by year 5 it would be starting to pay off, and I'd stand a better chance of re-election than Starmer, Reeves and co (who will still be stuck in their tax rasing, economy destroying doomloop if they somehow get that far).
How about a 1% tax on the estimated £13tn wealth in this country. That comes to, oh, £130bn.
Better still make it progressive. 1% on the first £500k, 1% on the next £1.5m, and whatever percent required to net £130bn on the wealth over £2m.
Alongside a commitment not to borrow.
Logic: we've not been paying our way for many years and we continue not to pay our way. Time for a reckoning.
Funding target for all the worlds developing countries combined to cover climate change impacts: $1.3tn Elon Musk pay deal: $1tn
It is an absurdity that we are so timid in challenging the broligarchs and somehow think this is healthy. It is not typical of the capitalism we grew up with either. The disparity between CEO, middle managers and min wage workers is far bigger than it should be and than it used to be. When the market is inefficient as it is in exec pay, tax is a partial solution.
The challenge with the "Musk just got $1tn that would pay for x" is that he hasn't just been given $1tn. The deal - and I think its absurd - gives him $1tn in options in 10 years if the company achieves multiple laughably large targets. In which case his trillion is dwarfed by the revenue generated and I assume the share price.
Yes I realise. But it is still absurd. In the old days if you wanted to take a 25% share of the companies growth, you would own 25% of the companies shares. Now you sell your shares to middle men holding money on behalf of retail clients, then still demand that you get your 25% of future growth. It is cakeism for Musk, commission for the middle men and a long con on the retail investors.
Only if you can sufficiently convince the shareholders that you're absolutely essential to the company's prospects.
And it's not exactly a typical case; Tesla's capitalisation is required to reach $8.5 trillion for the payout, so it's 15, not 25%; the chances of his succeeding in this are fairly slim anyway.
(I do not own any Tesla shares.)
It is not an all or nothing deal, he will get tens of billions almost regardless.
Oh, I don't disagree. It's just that I don't like hyperbole.
If I can't use a bit of hyperbole when discussing a $100 trillion salary package when can I?
Trump declaring "MAGA is what I say it is" has not gone down well.
Was he always this bad and we just didn't see it? I mean I knew he wasn't going to be as conservative as I would like but I never imagined he would be ANTI AMERICAN like this. .. https://x.com/ConservativeG99/status/1988539668145848442
As per one of the comments - if you give a conman a blank cheque he'll clean you out. They did, and he is.
There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently.
Total managed expendature is currently ~£1250bn.
The deficit is ~£130bn. In round numbers, that's ~10%.
If you made me the CofE I think I would go for a big bang reset. 10% off everything. 10% reduction in wages for every single person who directly or indirectly works for the government. 10% cut to every kind of benefit including pensions. 10% cut to the health budget.
Oh, and 10% cut in the minimum wage too.
It would be a painful "rip the plaster off" solution. The unions would go nuts, the government would be shockingly unpopular, there would be court cases as far as the eye could see. But - once the dust had settled, we'd have the books balanced, the bond markets would be out of the driving seat, once out of our current doom loop I suspect economic growth would bounce back surprisingly well. By cutting government wages, and benefits you take a lot of pressure off private sectors wages too. You'd knock the bubble out of the housing market, and you'd kill inflation stone dead.
If I did it on day 1 of a 5 year administration and held my nerve, I think by year 5 it would be starting to pay off, and I'd stand a better chance of re-election than Starmer, Reeves and co (who will still be stuck in their tax rasing, economy destroying doomloop if they somehow get that far).
How about a 1% tax on the estimated £13tn wealth in this country. That comes to, oh, £130bn.
Better still make it progressive. 1% on the first £500k, 1% on the next £1.5m, and whatever percent required to net £130bn on the wealth over £2m.
Alongside a commitment not to borrow.
Logic: we've not been paying our way for many years and we continue not to pay our way. Time for a reckoning.
Funding target for all the worlds developing countries combined to cover climate change impacts: $1.3tn Elon Musk pay deal: $1tn
It is an absurdity that we are so timid in challenging the broligarchs and somehow think this is healthy. It is not typical of the capitalism we grew up with either. The disparity between CEO, middle managers and min wage workers is far bigger than it should be and than it used to be. When the market is inefficient as it is in exec pay, tax is a partial solution.
The challenge with the "Musk just got $1tn that would pay for x" is that he hasn't just been given $1tn. The deal - and I think its absurd - gives him $1tn in options in 10 years if the company achieves multiple laughably large targets. In which case his trillion is dwarfed by the revenue generated and I assume the share price.
Yes I realise. But it is still absurd. In the old days if you wanted to take a 25% share of the companies growth, you would own 25% of the companies shares. Now you sell your shares to middle men holding money on behalf of retail clients, then still demand that you get your 25% of future growth. It is cakeism for Musk, commission for the middle men and a long con on the retail investors.
Only if you can sufficiently convince the shareholders that you're absolutely essential to the company's prospects.
And it's not exactly a typical case; Tesla's capitalisation is required to reach $8.5 trillion for the payout, so it's 15, not 25%; the chances of his succeeding in this are fairly slim anyway.
(I do not own any Tesla shares.)
It is not an all or nothing deal, he will get tens of billions almost regardless.
Oh, I don't disagree. It's just that I don't like hyperbole.
The court of appeal ruled on Tuesday that Northamptonshire police were in contempt and had been “willfully disobedient” for repeatedly failing to obey rulings to hand over video to a woman who complained she had been wrongly arrested by three officers.
Nadine Buzzard-Quashie was arrested by Northamptonshire police in September 2021, triggering a four-year saga.
…
The judgment said: “Her account of her arrest … was that she was physically assaulted by the officers who arrested her, she was physically thrown to the ground and had her face pushed into stinging nettles.”
She wanted video footage of her arrest, including from police body-worn cameras, which the force did not provide.
She complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office which made an order that all video should be handed over, which the force ignored, then a county court judge made another order, which the force failed to obey again.
The force told courts it did not have any more video to hand over, then reversed its position at a hearing in October. The court of appeal judgment said: “This means that all the statements made to the court on behalf of the police force prior to mid-October 2025 were false.”
On Tuesday three appeal court judges issued a blistering and unanimous ruling.
Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Fraser said “misleading and untrue statements … have been made to the court on behalf of the chief constable, both to the county court … and also to the court of appeal in relation to the application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself. To list every single statement made on behalf of the chief constable that has proved to be inaccurate over this lengthy period would lengthen this judgment considerably.”
I am shocked by this, I am sure Cyclefree will be too when she reads this story.
It’s pretty unusual for the CC to be found guilty of contempt, no?
Presumably the man himself is now going to have to show up at the court of appeal, to explain his force’s behaviour in the case?
My friend’s sister is suing GMP over an unreasonable strip search and other issues, guess what, all the video footage from the officers at the arrest and at the police station was either not working or deleted.
What were the odds?
When they shot DeMendes, the CCTV for the specific area of the incident was broken.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
The comments on that tweet are informative. Your Party is turning into a Exterminate Israel party with a froth of old lefties and Zarah Sultana attached. Who is the Davros in this Dalek takeover of the Thals, or is it just a diffuse cloud of seething antisemitism dissolving everything?
Let's face it - anyone still aligned with Trump is (at best) paedophile adjacent or paedophile enabling. The last available off-ramp from that position is rapidly approaching. When MTG has the brains to spot that it is hard to feel sympathy for where the rest of them are headed.
Has anyone yet asked Farage what it is he most likes about the notorious sex offender Donald Trump?
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
That's unsurprising. The people in question want him to advocate the removal of Isreal as a state. Not a 1 state solution.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
That's unsurprising. The people in question want him to advocate the removal of Isreal as a state. Not a 1 state solution.
IIRC Corbyn is mostly a Two State/67 borders guy.
All things considered, it's probably time for Your Party to split into Your Real Party and Really Your Party.
Several videos online of plastic patriots in Worcester putting up Temu flags with cable ties on lampposts. Abusive to old guy whose land is millimetres from one lamppost. And patronising to a woman.
Entertainingly the plastic patriot starts talking about how taking their flag down would be "theft". No luv, you're putting it up illegally. Taking it down is not "theft".
And of course the patriot is cable tying the flag to the lamppost upside down. Because of course he is.
Flags up in Derbyshire notably in Lee Anderson's constituency but in Amber Valley too and said flags soon looking bedraggled with a drop or two of rain. Far more impressive were the poppies on lamp posts in Belper, Matlock and other towns.
You talk to the locals and many of them are clearly worried about "the migrants" yet where they are they never see one. They ought to try a few days in East Ham if they want to see a more cosmopolitan Britain.
Your second point is very pertinent.
As I see it, the Lee Anderson type politics work in places where people have likely never met an immigrant - so they can make assumptions with no counter-evidence, or there are so many immigrants that they feel, at first reaction, frightened.
That unfortunately is incentivising a politics driving division and demonisation, which we need to undermine over time.
The incident I cite above of Lee Anderson's invention of an asylum hotel out of thin air, when as taxpayers we supply him with 5 or more office staff so he can find out what is true before riding out on social media like a tin pot St George selling bullshit, illustrates.
It's the weaponisation of ignorance, pure and simple. Unfortunately, ignorance seems to be one of our few real growth industries.
Yes - but what is an effective political counter?
Rational argument has limitations against an emotional motivation. SKS is not well placed in temperament, imo. How does one slow down and nail down a flim-flam man spinning a kaleidoscope?
One idiosyncratic angle I wonder about is that Nigel and Lee's approach is not British; it is unpatriotic.
To take a for instance - what would the effect be on Con-Ref appeal if by 2027/8 net immigration has been cut by 75% from 2024/5, and asylum hotels were down from 400 to 40?
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
That's unsurprising. The people in question want him to advocate the removal of Isreal as a state. Not a 1 state solution.
IIRC Corbyn is mostly a Two State/67 borders guy.
All things considered, it's probably time for Your Party to split into Your Real Party and Really Your Party.
What about the
Continuity Your Party The Really Real Your Party The Keepin' It Real Your Party
There's still a very difficult economic picture and there's still an army of backbench Labour MPs who think their job is to fling money at people to make themselves feel better, rather than manage the public finances.
Still, the reputation of Sunak and Hunt is only improving each day this nonsense continues. We'll see (eventually) if Starmer and Reeves can get a grip.
My suspicion is it'll go something like this: taxes rise on the evil private sector, more money flung at the virtuous public sector, the economy is harmed so tax receipts don't match expectations, meaning more steps are needed at the next Budget which then harms the economy more, rinse and repeat.
Hopefully I'll be wrong.
What then (to use your terminology) is the alternative?
I presume you'd like to see taxes cut and spending cut - I suspect spending will be cut in the Budget but presumably you want to see some serious reductions? I presume it'll be the services people actually depend on which will bear the brunt rather than, let's say, defence which is sacrosanct.
Which services and whose benefits would you cut? Would you cut pensions (or just those in the public sector)?
As always, those advocating spending cuts are usually unaffected by any such cuts and it's not unreasonable of those who will be affected to ask why they should take the pain.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently.
Total managed expendature is currently ~£1250bn.
The deficit is ~£130bn. In round numbers, that's ~10%.
If you made me the CofE I think I would go for a big bang reset. 10% off everything. 10% reduction in wages for every single person who directly or indirectly works for the government. 10% cut to every kind of benefit including pensions. 10% cut to the health budget.
Oh, and 10% cut in the minimum wage too.
It would be a painful "rip the plaster off" solution. The unions would go nuts, the government would be shockingly unpopular, there would be court cases as far as the eye could see. But - once the dust had settled, we'd have the books balanced, the bond markets would be out of the driving seat, once out of our current doom loop I suspect economic growth would bounce back surprisingly well. By cutting government wages, and benefits you take a lot of pressure off private sectors wages too. You'd knock the bubble out of the housing market, and you'd kill inflation stone dead.
If I did it on day 1 of a 5 year administration and held my nerve, I think by year 5 it would be starting to pay off, and I'd stand a better chance of re-election than Starmer, Reeves and co (who will still be stuck in their tax rasing, economy destroying doomloop if they somehow get that far).
How about a 1% tax on the estimated £13tn wealth in this country. That comes to, oh, £130bn.
Better still make it progressive. 1% on the first £500k, 1% on the next £1.5m, and whatever percent required to net £130bn on the wealth over £2m.
Alongside a commitment not to borrow.
Logic: we've not been paying our way for many years and we continue not to pay our way. Time for a reckoning.
Funding target for all the worlds developing countries combined to cover climate change impacts: $1.3tn Elon Musk pay deal: $1tn
It is an absurdity that we are so timid in challenging the broligarchs and somehow think this is healthy. It is not typical of the capitalism we grew up with either. The disparity between CEO, middle managers and min wage workers is far bigger than it should be and than it used to be. When the market is inefficient as it is in exec pay, tax is a partial solution.
The challenge with the "Musk just got $1tn that would pay for x" is that he hasn't just been given $1tn. The deal - and I think its absurd - gives him $1tn in options in 10 years if the company achieves multiple laughably large targets. In which case his trillion is dwarfed by the revenue generated and I assume the share price.
Yes I realise. But it is still absurd. In the old days if you wanted to take a 25% share of the companies growth, you would own 25% of the companies shares. Now you sell your shares to middle men holding money on behalf of retail clients, then still demand that you get your 25% of future growth. It is cakeism for Musk, commission for the middle men and a long con on the retail investors.
Only if you can sufficiently convince the shareholders that you're absolutely essential to the company's prospects.
And it's not exactly a typical case; Tesla's capitalisation is required to reach $8.5 trillion for the payout, so it's 15, not 25%; the chances of his succeeding in this are fairly slim anyway.
(I do not own any Tesla shares.)
It is not an all or nothing deal, he will get tens of billions almost regardless.
Oh, I don't disagree. It's just that I don't like hyperbole.
The award is structure like this
#
Tesla valuation
increase (absolute)
increase (%)
total award to Musk (US $ billion)
0
1.1 T
+0.0 T
0%
0
1
2.0 T
+0.9 T
+82%
83
2
2.5 T
+1.4 T
+127%
166
3
3.0 T
+1.9 T
+173%
249
4
3.5 T
+2.4 T
+218%
332
5
4.0 T
+2.9 T
+264%
415
6
4.5 T
+3.4 T
+309%
498
7
5.0 T
+3.9 T
+355%
581
8
5.5 T
+4.4 T
+400%
664
9
6.0 T
+4.9 T
+445%
747
10
6.5 T
+5.4 T
+491%
830
11
7.5 T
+6.4 T
+582%
913
12
8.5 T
+7.4 T
+673%
996 ≈ 1,000
Is there a set timescale or date for when the valuation increase is tested?
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
That's unsurprising. The people in question want him to advocate the removal of Isreal as a state. Not a 1 state solution.
IIRC Corbyn is mostly a Two State/67 borders guy.
All things considered, it's probably time for Your Party to split into Your Real Party and Really Your Party.
What about the
Continuity Your Party The Really Real Your Party The Keepin' It Real Your Party
Police and crime commissioners to be abolished, government to announce System introduced in 2012 across England and Wales has faced criticism from police chiefs
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
Somebody never read Kahneman and Tversky's work....
Police and crime commissioners to be abolished, government to announce System introduced in 2012 across England and Wales has faced criticism from police chiefs
One less thing for an incoming Reform government to do.
Months back I identified Streeting as Labour's Liz Truss...
Labour's Truss would be if SKS goes and the members pick somebody from the ideological Left who makes them feel good but is clueless and incompetent. Streeting, like him or not, doesn't fit the bill.
There's always Ed Milliband...
Now you're talking. If the goal is apoplexy at the TeleMail - and there are worse goals let's face it - that's the way to go. After all these years, fully a decade after we missed the chance, we can finally have "chaos with Ed Miliband".
You may scoff but...
On thread, at 16/1 Ed Miliband is a very good value bet in this market (Streeting is 11/2). He is by some way the most popular Cabinet minister amongst Labour members at a +71% net approval (using Labour List rankings as a close proxy) compared to Streeting who has +17% (still well ahead of Starmer on -11%!!) Miliband is close politically to Burnham and part of the same Mainstream grouping. He has a decent chance of getting the support of 20% of Labour MPs as the soft left candidate to stand against Starmer in a leadership contest, not least because he'll be viewed as the best placed candidate to beat Streeting.
It doesn't matter to the Labour selectorate that Miliband's popularity with the membership is not echoed amongst the general public, although I think that anyone who moves against Starmer will pick up some credit with the public in the present climate. Miliband is also well placed to court support from those who have switched allegiance to the Greens or Lib Dems which is the group from which Labour really needs to win back support under new leadership.
He's also clearly interested in standing. There was no particular imperative for him to weigh in today to publically echo Streeting's call for the No 10 briefers to be sacked, but he's chosen to do so anyway, which helps keep him in the frame.
I wasn't really scoffing. Ed is a decent long shot bet if you want to avoid the fav. But I think Streeting myself and I don't think he's too short at current odds. I also wouldn't get too swept up with "Starmer is toast next year" sentiment. I don't see him leading into the next GE but 1.9 to go in 2026 doesn't appeal. I'd be more inclined to back 27/28 at much higher prices.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
That's unsurprising. The people in question want him to advocate the removal of Isreal as a state. Not a 1 state solution.
IIRC Corbyn is mostly a Two State/67 borders guy.
All things considered, it's probably time for Your Party to split into Your Real Party and Really Your Party.
What about the
Continuity Your Party The Really Real Your Party The Keepin' It Real Your Party
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Months back I identified Streeting as Labour's Liz Truss...
Labour's Truss would be if SKS goes and the members pick somebody from the ideological Left who makes them feel good but is clueless and incompetent. Streeting, like him or not, doesn't fit the bill.
There's always Ed Milliband...
Now you're talking. If the goal is apoplexy at the TeleMail - and there are worse goals let's face it - that's the way to go. After all these years, fully a decade after we missed the chance, we can finally have "chaos with Ed Miliband".
You may scoff but...
On thread, at 16/1 Ed Miliband is a very good value bet in this market (Streeting is 11/2). He is by some way the most popular Cabinet minister amongst Labour members at a +71% net approval (using Labour List rankings as a close proxy) compared to Streeting who has +17% (still well ahead of Starmer on -11%!!) Miliband is close politically to Burnham and part of the same Mainstream grouping. He has a decent chance of getting the support of 20% of Labour MPs as the soft left candidate to stand against Starmer in a leadership contest, not least because he'll be viewed as the best placed candidate to beat Streeting.
It doesn't matter to the Labour selectorate that Miliband's popularity with the membership is not echoed amongst the general public, although I think that anyone who moves against Starmer will pick up some credit with the public in the present climate. Miliband is also well placed to court support from those who have switched allegiance to the Greens or Lib Dems which is the group from which Labour really needs to win back support under new leadership.
He's also clearly interested in standing. There was no particular imperative for him to weigh in today to publically echo Streeting's call for the No 10 briefers to be sacked, but he's chosen to do so anyway, which helps keep him in the frame.
There was some modest self effacing chap who tipped Ed Miliband at 100/1.
Trump declaring "MAGA is what I say it is" has not gone down well.
Was he always this bad and we just didn't see it? I mean I knew he wasn't going to be as conservative as I would like but I never imagined he would be ANTI AMERICAN like this. .. https://x.com/ConservativeG99/status/1988539668145848442
Trump actually pretty sane and sensible there re the South Korean workers arrested.
Having sold his supporters on embracing insanity, the occasional bit of "actually pretty sane and sensible" pisses off his core vote.
And if the electorate want actual sane and sensible, they won't be ticking the GOP box at the next election.
I understand the concerns driving people to support Reform: issues like demographic change, migrant crime, failures to prosecute low-level offences, and even some of the patriotic displays (though personally, I wouldn’t want flags on my nice heritage house; my wife says it would lower the tone, she’s posh and middle class, having been to a private school, while I’m a self-employed council estate lad, salt of the earth). However, when you look through the Reform Facebook and Action pages, it quickly becomes chaotic. Most pages seem to follow a pattern where discussions escalate and ultimately culminate in letter-writing campaigns or petitions asking the King to call a general election.
The only thing Reformers have in common is they hate other people. Some of them seem to hate themselves.
But, if a Refomer is what Big Nige says a Reformer is, he will be in for a shock. Nige is an old school Thaterite but likes to show leg to get what he wants, he mixes it with a reactionary flare that many hold their nose at. Don't blame him for pointing out the problems though..
Leaving aside the policies, which I completely disagree with, we're all going to have a miserable time when Reform get into power. All they care about is being unpleasant to everyone else. It's hard to bear for someone who has a sunny outlook on life and just wants people to get on.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
I appreciate you're arguing the flip-side of my point but in reality both are true. My general point is that a lot of people don't plan beyond tomorrow, some not even that far.
Police and crime commissioners to be abolished, government to announce System introduced in 2012 across England and Wales has faced criticism from police chiefs
One less thing for an incoming Reform government to do.
Reform were going to abolish them? Weren't they brainchild of Reform's spiritual founder Douglas Carswell?
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
Police and crime commissioners to be abolished, government to announce System introduced in 2012 across England and Wales has faced criticism from police chiefs
One less thing for an incoming Reform government to do.
I can't help feeling that anything that faces criticism from Sire Ronald Savage OBE, DiPSHit is probably a good idea.
Especially since one of his chums is trying to get sent to prison.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
Somebody never read Kahneman and Tversky's work....
Pause. Raises hand diffidently. "Um, me?" My TBR pile is too large already.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
That's not the point though is it, the difference to the rest of society is between the cost of child poverty, personal to the child themselves and the costs to the rest of society in social care, policing, crime etc of a trouble teen then adult and the benefit that alleviating child poverty could bring, happy, educated, productive teen then adult.
That's why Surestart was worth it, the ROI both in monetary and societal gains.
It's a net benefit even to those people with a selfish worldview who "don't want to reward people who can't afford their children".
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
Somebody never read Kahneman and Tversky's work....
Pause. Raises hand diffidently. "Um, me?" My TBR pile is too large already.
No the Independent columnist. But Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman is an essential read about their work that eventually won them a Noble Prize. The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis is also an interesting read about their lives.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
Somebody never read Kahneman and Tversky's work....
Pause. Raises hand diffidently. "Um, me?" My TBR pile is too large already.
Months back I identified Streeting as Labour's Liz Truss...
Labour's Truss would be if SKS goes and the members pick somebody from the ideological Left who makes them feel good but is clueless and incompetent. Streeting, like him or not, doesn't fit the bill.
There's always Ed Milliband...
Now you're talking. If the goal is apoplexy at the TeleMail - and there are worse goals let's face it - that's the way to go. After all these years, fully a decade after we missed the chance, we can finally have "chaos with Ed Miliband".
You may scoff but...
On thread, at 16/1 Ed Miliband is a very good value bet in this market (Streeting is 11/2). He is by some way the most popular Cabinet minister amongst Labour members at a +71% net approval (using Labour List rankings as a close proxy) compared to Streeting who has +17% (still well ahead of Starmer on -11%!!) Miliband is close politically to Burnham and part of the same Mainstream grouping. He has a decent chance of getting the support of 20% of Labour MPs as the soft left candidate to stand against Starmer in a leadership contest, not least because he'll be viewed as the best placed candidate to beat Streeting.
It doesn't matter to the Labour selectorate that Miliband's popularity with the membership is not echoed amongst the general public, although I think that anyone who moves against Starmer will pick up some credit with the public in the present climate. Miliband is also well placed to court support from those who have switched allegiance to the Greens or Lib Dems which is the group from which Labour really needs to win back support under new leadership.
He's also clearly interested in standing. There was no particular imperative for him to weigh in today to publically echo Streeting's call for the No 10 briefers to be sacked, but he's chosen to do so anyway, which helps keep him in the frame.
I wasn't really scoffing. Ed is a decent long shot bet if you want to avoid the fav. But I think Streeting myself and I don't think he's too short at current odds. I also wouldn't get too swept up with "Starmer is toast next year" sentiment. I don't see him leading into the next GE but 1.9 to go in 2026 doesn't appeal. I'd be more inclined to back 27/28 at much higher prices.
The Labour membership/selectorate isn't keen on Streeting because he's made his name divisively marginalising the left, and much prefers EdM. That could change (this week's debacle is clearly helpful to Streeting) or the membersip could change. I know a fair number of Labour people like me who are waiting to see how the new party's conference in two weeks works out - if it produces a positive left-wing force with a reasonable chance, a lot of us will be tempted (but if it's a shambolic squabble over rules, then not), which would leave a rump of members who like Streeting.
What do voters want? Primarily leadership with a clear, attractive medium-term agenda. I don't think most voters think of themselves as especially left- or right-wing, though they react against people seen as extreme and negative (e.g. Scargill).
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
See above - the people in question want him to declare that Israel shouldn't exist and must be removed.
The people in question are probably called Zionists, themselves, because they don't advocate... {ED: enough}
It’s bonkers, it has always amused me that a couple of posters have accused dear sweet Roger, a Jew, of antisemitism.
Two cheeks of the same arse.
For comedy value - some of the ultra-ultra-ultra-lefties in question, who want the explicit destruction of Israel, are Jewish.
They are the kind of people who would get kicked out of the British Communist Party for being excessively left wing.
Mind you, Roger is now espousing Tucker Carlson. Because he is anti-Netanyahu. I do worry where that will lead. A short film at Cannes on the Truth of Chem Trails?
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Part of the issue with not devolving powers is that central government rarely attracts high quality, let alone non partisan candidates...
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
That's not the point though is it, the difference to the rest of society is between the cost of child poverty, personal to the child themselves and the costs to the rest of society in social care, policing, crime etc of a trouble teen then adult and the benefit that alleviating child poverty could bring, happy, educated, productive teen then adult.
That's why Surestart was worth it, the ROI both in monetary and societal gains.
It's a net benefit even to those people with a selfish worldview who "don't want to reward people who can't afford their children".
My thought, at the time, as a teenager myself (doing Economics A Level) was that any teenager who would sit down and plan their life based on a detailed study of economic opportunities combined with an NPV analysis....
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
That's not the point though is it, the difference to the rest of society is between the cost of child poverty, personal to the child themselves and the costs to the rest of society in social care, policing, crime etc of a trouble teen then adult and the benefit that alleviating child poverty could bring, happy, educated, productive teen then adult.
That's why Surestart was worth it, the ROI both in monetary and societal gains.
It's a net benefit even to those people with a selfish worldview who "don't want to reward people who can't afford their children".
It's all going to explode when either Reform or the Cons effectively articulate that removing the cap on two children for benefits is nothing more than a wealth exchange to migrant families and/or minorities.
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Part of the issue with not devolving powers is that central government rarely attracts high quality, let alone non partisan candidates...
And all the money stays in London.
Many years ago, I actually asked a Thatcher era cabinet minister why they didn't simply let the Mad Left Councils go Full Loony - spend infinite amounts of money, raise council tax to the stratosphere.
After all, it would have ended up as a disaster for the Left, and fixed itself within a year or 2.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
Somebody never read Kahneman and Tversky's work....
Pause. Raises hand diffidently. "Um, me?" My TBR pile is too large already.
Likewise. Every day a learning day.
We talk about prospect theory pretty well all the time on PB, without either knowing that's what it's called, or who pioneered it.
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Part of the issue with not devolving powers is that central government rarely attracts high quality, let alone non partisan candidates...
And all the money stays in London.
Many years ago, I actually asked a Thatcher era cabinet minister why they didn't simply let the Mad Left Councils go Full Loony - spend infinite amounts of money, raise council tax to the stratosphere.
After all, it would have ended up as a disaster for the Left, and fixed itself within a year or 2.
He was quite horrified at the idea, I recall.
But I do wonder....
The way councils are currently working even the good ones are struggling, believe it or not this is less about cuts, but more about increased costs.
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Don't need to tell me that. We should have an English Parliament, but that's something that Westminster finds impossible to countenance.
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Part of the issue with not devolving powers is that central government rarely attracts high quality, let alone non partisan candidates...
And all the money stays in London.
Many years ago, I actually asked a Thatcher era cabinet minister why they didn't simply let the Mad Left Councils go Full Loony - spend infinite amounts of money, raise council tax to the stratosphere.
After all, it would have ended up as a disaster for the Left, and fixed itself within a year or 2.
He was quite horrified at the idea, I recall.
But I do wonder....
See “Republicans for Mamdani”.
They’re all looking forward to him either failing miserably to do what he’s said he would, or to succeed at it and show the rest of the country why socialism never works.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
That's not the point though is it, the difference to the rest of society is between the cost of child poverty, personal to the child themselves and the costs to the rest of society in social care, policing, crime etc of a trouble teen then adult and the benefit that alleviating child poverty could bring, happy, educated, productive teen then adult.
That's why Surestart was worth it, the ROI both in monetary and societal gains.
It's a net benefit even to those people with a selfish worldview who "don't want to reward people who can't afford their children".
It's all going to explode when either Reform or the Cons effectively articulate that removing the cap on two children for benefits is nothing more than a wealth exchange to migrant families and/or minorities.
It could be alternatively framed as a transfer to the religious and socially conservative families ?
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Part of the issue with not devolving powers is that central government rarely attracts high quality, let alone non partisan candidates...
And all the money stays in London.
Many years ago, I actually asked a Thatcher era cabinet minister why they didn't simply let the Mad Left Councils go Full Loony - spend infinite amounts of money, raise council tax to the stratosphere.
After all, it would have ended up as a disaster for the Left, and fixed itself within a year or 2.
He was quite horrified at the idea, I recall.
But I do wonder....
See “Republicans for Mamdani”.
They’re all looking forward to him either failing miserably to do what he’s said he would, or to succeed at it and show the rest of the country why socialism never works.
In my case, I am in favour of localism. Which means the local government has to have the power and ability to fuck up.
Think the Swiss system - where power is genuinely devolved.
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Part of the issue with not devolving powers is that central government rarely attracts high quality, let alone non partisan candidates...
And all the money stays in London.
Many years ago, I actually asked a Thatcher era cabinet minister why they didn't simply let the Mad Left Councils go Full Loony - spend infinite amounts of money, raise council tax to the stratosphere.
After all, it would have ended up as a disaster for the Left, and fixed itself within a year or 2.
He was quite horrified at the idea, I recall.
But I do wonder....
Centralisation predated Thatcher, but that was indeed when the rot really set in.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
That's not the point though is it, the difference to the rest of society is between the cost of child poverty, personal to the child themselves and the costs to the rest of society in social care, policing, crime etc of a trouble teen then adult and the benefit that alleviating child poverty could bring, happy, educated, productive teen then adult.
That's why Surestart was worth it, the ROI both in monetary and societal gains.
It's a net benefit even to those people with a selfish worldview who "don't want to reward people who can't afford their children".
It's all going to explode when either Reform or the Cons effectively articulate that removing the cap on two children for benefits is nothing more than a wealth exchange to migrant families and/or minorities.
It could be alternatively framed as a transfer to the religious and socially conservative families ?
Yes, lets try that one...
It's fuel on the fire, and its naive to think that there isn't a political calculation that there's a reward for helping one group and hope the others dont notice.
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Don't need to tell me that. We should have an English Parliament, but that's something that Westminster finds impossible to countenance.
What would an English Parliament do for us? Be better off split into regionals to match the sizes (roughly) of Scotland, Wales and NI.
Child Benefits should be linked to x number of years of previous full-time employment. Perhaps 5 to 10 years per child, split between both parents.
Send em down pit before school.
If you don't have what it takes to look after yourself then you certainly don't have what it takes to adequately raise a child. We need to be far clearer and far louder about that.
There is some truth in what you say. But actions have consequences beyond your intention. Take away child benefit from the poorest, expect a bigger underclass, more need for social care, more crime, more misery and ultimately more expense for the taxpayer.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Amused that @Foss thinks that people who 'don't have what it takes to look after yourself' have what it takes to calculate whether having another child is financially viable.
Many, many years ago, there was an impassioned column in the Independent, arguing that teenage pregnancy "to get a council house" couldn't be true. Because by adding up the life time benefits of finishing school vs teenage pregnancy - including the NPV........
That's not the point though is it, the difference to the rest of society is between the cost of child poverty, personal to the child themselves and the costs to the rest of society in social care, policing, crime etc of a trouble teen then adult and the benefit that alleviating child poverty could bring, happy, educated, productive teen then adult.
That's why Surestart was worth it, the ROI both in monetary and societal gains.
It's a net benefit even to those people with a selfish worldview who "don't want to reward people who can't afford their children".
My thought, at the time, as a teenager myself (doing Economics A Level) was that any teenager who would sit down and plan their life based on a detailed study of economic opportunities combined with an NPV analysis....
Just thinking about the health and financial implications of forcing rational parents, who never,e ver have little accidents, to wait 11 years for their second child and again for their third (assuming that mum was out of the workforce for 2 years).
Plus it's not as if the upper and middle classes show particularly good examples in child care even when they have plenty of money, e.g. after divorce. For instance, decades ago, one Tory hate campaign against shiftless shaggers on council estates was badly derailed when one cabinet minister turned out to be doing the same, only in rather more comfort ...
Months back I identified Streeting as Labour's Liz Truss...
Labour's Truss would be if SKS goes and the members pick somebody from the ideological Left who makes them feel good but is clueless and incompetent. Streeting, like him or not, doesn't fit the bill.
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Don't need to tell me that. We should have an English Parliament, but that's something that Westminster finds impossible to countenance.
What would an English Parliament do for us? Be better off split into regionals to match the sizes (roughly) of Scotland, Wales and NI.
When that was mooted by New Labour, it was explicitly rejected as an attempt to break up England into manageable (by the central government) pieces.
The general Nottinghamshire view amongst my associates is that lived experience has proved decisively that they were a BAD idea.
Five speeding tickets Won by the PCC A ban from all driving Won by Caroline Henree And she didn't tell anyone Until she was PCC Five speeding tickets Won by the PCC
Was it a bad idea, or a good idea poorly implemented?
Part of the issue with passing down powers more locally is rarely does it attract high quality local non-partisan candidates. It too often becomes another place to put politicians who have failed elsewhere. Police and Crime Commissioners being a good example. It is rarely if ever now some local non-political person who is highly experienced getting the gig.
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Part of the issue with not devolving powers is that central government rarely attracts high quality, let alone non partisan candidates...
And all the money stays in London.
Many years ago, I actually asked a Thatcher era cabinet minister why they didn't simply let the Mad Left Councils go Full Loony - spend infinite amounts of money, raise council tax to the stratosphere.
After all, it would have ended up as a disaster for the Left, and fixed itself within a year or 2.
He was quite horrified at the idea, I recall.
But I do wonder....
See “Republicans for Mamdani”.
They’re all looking forward to him either failing miserably to do what he’s said he would, or to succeed at it and show the rest of the country why socialism never works.
In my case, I am in favour of localism. Which means the local government has to have the power and ability to fuck up.
Think the Swiss system - where power is genuinely devolved.
Not devolved. Devolved means it can be taken back if the government of the day wants.* Federalised is the mot juste.
*Which is why one has to be very careful when reading claims that Holyrood is 'the most devolved whatever in the world'.
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Don't need to tell me that. We should have an English Parliament, but that's something that Westminster finds impossible to countenance.
What would an English Parliament do for us? Be better off split into regionals to match the sizes (roughly) of Scotland, Wales and NI.
Slicing England, a single realm, into pathetic little regional assemblies is unacceptable. Why should Scotland not be cut into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands, as those three parts would more closely resemble the Welsh Assembly's size?
If a Parliament is good enough for Scotland it's good enough for England. Cutting England into pieces because the political class think the English less worthwhile than the Scots is not acceptable.
I see we are scrapping police and crime commissioners. Back to old days of the police boards?
They would at least allow for the non-congruence of polis boards with any level of local government that one seems to get today, at least in England (dunno about Wales). Vide the Durham Plod example adduced a little earlier y @eek .
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Don't need to tell me that. We should have an English Parliament, but that's something that Westminster finds impossible to countenance.
What would an English Parliament do for us? Be better off split into regionals to match the sizes (roughly) of Scotland, Wales and NI.
Slicing England, a single realm, into pathetic little regional assemblies is unacceptable. Why should Scotland not be cut into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands, as those three parts would more closely resemble the Welsh Assembly's size?
If a Parliament is good enough for Scotland it's good enough for England. Cutting England into pieces because the political class think the English less worthwhile than the Scots is not acceptable.
I knew you would rise to the Bring Back the Heptarchy call! Brings back our discussions of 2012-3 ...
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Don't need to tell me that. We should have an English Parliament, but that's something that Westminster finds impossible to countenance.
What would an English Parliament do for us? Be better off split into regionals to match the sizes (roughly) of Scotland, Wales and NI.
Slicing England, a single realm, into pathetic little regional assemblies is unacceptable. Why should Scotland not be cut into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands, as those three parts would more closely resemble the Welsh Assembly's size?
If a Parliament is good enough for Scotland it's good enough for England. Cutting England into pieces because the political class think the English less worthwhile than the Scots is not acceptable.
I knew you would rise to the Bring Back the Heptarchy call! Brings back our discussions of 2012-3 ...
The Heptarchy is largely a discredited theory (the number of kingdoms was continually changing over time). Also, Northumbria had quite a lot of modern Scotland, I believe...
How will that change the role of Regional Mayors? Will they gain the role, or will those who have them already lose the role?
Going to be fun in areas like County Durham where one of the police forces runs across 2 regional mayors and that police force refuses to merge with either of the other forces (for sane reasons).
The more I read about it the more disorganised English local government seems to be, all those single and dual tier and mayors and so on. In contrast Scotland here seems is a shining beacon of simplicity - one polis, one level of local gmt under Holyrood, and so on. Not saying that that is always best, but to me English local gmt does seem to be heading the way of the American police system.
Don't need to tell me that. We should have an English Parliament, but that's something that Westminster finds impossible to countenance.
What would an English Parliament do for us? Be better off split into regionals to match the sizes (roughly) of Scotland, Wales and NI.
Slicing England, a single realm, into pathetic little regional assemblies is unacceptable. Why should Scotland not be cut into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands, as those three parts would more closely resemble the Welsh Assembly's size?
If a Parliament is good enough for Scotland it's good enough for England. Cutting England into pieces because the political class think the English less worthwhile than the Scots is not acceptable.
I knew you would rise to the Bring Back the Heptarchy call! Brings back our discussions of 2012-3 ...
I hadn't got MD down as a self hating Yorkshireman, but there you go, apparently.
Comments
MPWarCrimes does not afaics say which organisation or individual is responsible for it, and their editorial or political affiliation.
It's not the Parliamentary records quoted, rather the political interpretation placed on them.
And if the electorate want actual sane and sensible, they won't be ticking the GOP box at the next election.
The bit that you are missing is that many of the people in question are first generation immigrants to the UK. Quite a few don't have UK passports.
The two major parties are equal offenders.
It's more intricate than that, but ... LOL.
Getting rid of surestart was a huge false economy, lets not to do the same with child benefit. The formative years are important, if we neglect them for a chunk of the population, that chunk of the population will be very expensive to manage for all of us as they grow up in addition to screwing up the lives of kids who have no choice in who their parents are.
Wait a second. Lobbying registrar says that Allan's firm's clients include British Horseracing Authority - which, I recently revealed, was involved in a completely opaque - in fact, illicit - lobbying campaign paid for by billionaire track-track owners to exempt the industry from higher taxes at the budget.
Treasury sources tell me it succeeded. Reeves: "Each of us must do our bit"... does that include clients of No10 director of comms lobbying shop?
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1988901754260316245?s=20
This scale up was exactly what the US reactor builders did for the reactors for the aircraft carriers - get several times more power out of very similar design.
The US/UK cooperation on submarines is very deep - among other things, they shared the design for a reactor that can run without pumps at medium power. We shared the design of working pumpjet propulsors (shrouded propellors). When you combine the two, you get a sub that is silent, acoustically, at 20 knots. As opposed to 3 knots, previously.
There's a strong rumour that RR got to look at the designs for aircraft carrier reactors, to prepare bids/proposals for nuclear power for UK vessels (including carriers).
- It's 62 pages long with ten sections and 192 subsections, and (if AI is correct!) 32,366 words.
- By page count it's just under half the length of the Treaty of Lisbon (62 vs 145 pages) if you don't count the protocols and appendices.
- By word count it's over twice the length of the Treaty of Lisbon (12,800 words versus 32,366 words) again not counting protocols and appendices and assuming the AI word count is accurate.
- There is a limit to how long a document can be before the phrase "clarity of thought and reasoning" becomes untenable.
Plus there's no plain-text version. I know Cyclefree doesn't like them, but we really should be issuing flow charts with these judgementsClass action from Leigh Day incoming.
"Are you a lactuca sativa? You may have a claim for defamation "
They put me in the ICU.
The book is indeed The Heart's Invisible Furies by John Boyne. I am loving it. There are some laugh out loud parts and others that want to make you cry.
If anyone hasn't read it, do.
Something strange keeps happening to Jeremy Corbyn reports @meganekenyon - he keeps being accused of being a “Zionist” at Your Party events. His team are bewildered.
It's just that I don't like hyperbole.
On thread, at 16/1 Ed Miliband is a very good value bet in this market (Streeting is 11/2). He is by some way the most popular Cabinet minister amongst Labour members at a +71% net approval (using Labour List rankings as a close proxy) compared to Streeting who has +17% (still well ahead of Starmer on -11%!!) Miliband is close politically to Burnham and part of the same Mainstream grouping. He has a decent chance of getting the support of 20% of Labour MPs as the soft left candidate to stand against Starmer in a leadership contest, not least because he'll be viewed as the best placed candidate to beat Streeting.
It doesn't matter to the Labour selectorate that Miliband's popularity with the membership is not echoed amongst the general public, although I think that anyone who moves against Starmer will pick up some credit with the public in the present climate. Miliband is also well placed to court support from those who have switched allegiance to the Greens or Lib Dems which is the group from which Labour really needs to win back support under new leadership.
https://labourlist.org/2025/09/labour-cabinet-league-table-rankings-labourlist-survation/
He's also clearly interested in standing. There was no particular imperative for him to weigh in today to publically echo Streeting's call for the No 10 briefers to be sacked, but he's chosen to do so anyway, which helps keep him in the frame.
As I see it, the Lee Anderson type politics work in places where people have likely never met an immigrant - so they can make assumptions with no counter-evidence, or there are so many immigrants that they feel, at first reaction, frightened.
That unfortunately is incentivising a politics driving division and demonisation, which we need to undermine over time.
The incident I cite above of Lee Anderson's invention of an asylum hotel out of thin air, when as taxpayers we supply him with 5 or more office staff so he can find out what is true before riding out on social media like a tin pot St George selling bullshit, illustrates. He thinks he can benefit from keeping his supporters angry and frightened. Plus there is a politics around "two tier" justice, and the rest.
I think part of the answer is creating local cross links at different levels. Here I have a local Mosque, but it is in Mansfield 5 miles away and has quite a few of refugees from the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar there.
Back in the earl 1990s I was involved at the edge of an initiative in Nottingham called the Christian-Muslim forum, run by a University Chaplain and a local Imam, which was such an engagement at "intellectual" level. Each month there would be a meeting on a particular topic with a speaker from each side, reactions and a plenary.
You look hot today!
Has anyone yet asked Farage what it is he most likes about the notorious sex offender Donald Trump?
IIRC Corbyn is mostly a Two State/67 borders guy.
Police and crime commissioners to be abolished, government to announce
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/13/police-and-commissioners-to-be-abolished-government-to-announce
Rational argument has limitations against an emotional motivation. SKS is not well placed in temperament, imo. How does one slow down and nail down a flim-flam man spinning a kaleidoscope?
One idiosyncratic angle I wonder about is that Nigel and Lee's approach is not British; it is unpatriotic.
To take a for instance - what would the effect be on Con-Ref appeal if by 2027/8 net immigration has been cut by 75% from 2024/5, and asylum hotels were down from 400 to 40?
https://x.com/will___lloyd/status/1988883467128504447?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
Continuity Your Party
The Really Real Your Party
The Keepin' It Real Your Party
The people in question are probably called Zionists, themselves, because they don't advocate... {ED: enough}
System introduced in 2012 across England and Wales has faced criticism from police chiefs
Two cheeks of the same arse.
As long as that? Next week, Shirley?
The first elected Bristol Mayor was an exception, a local guy done good who was geuinely independent of party politics.
Especially since one of his chums is trying to get sent to prison.
That's why Surestart was worth it, the ROI both in monetary and societal gains.
It's a net benefit even to those people with a selfish worldview who "don't want to reward people who can't afford their children".
What do voters want? Primarily leadership with a clear, attractive medium-term agenda. I don't think most voters think of themselves as especially left- or right-wing, though they react against people seen as extreme and negative (e.g. Scargill).
They are the kind of people who would get kicked out of the British Communist Party for being excessively left wing.
Mind you, Roger is now espousing Tucker Carlson. Because he is anti-Netanyahu. I do worry where that will lead. A short film at Cannes on the Truth of Chem Trails?
And all the money stays in London.
FARAGE AS THE FAVOURITE TO
BE NEXT PM"
A Street-ing Car Named Desire?
After all, it would have ended up as a disaster for the Left, and fixed itself within a year or 2.
He was quite horrified at the idea, I recall.
But I do wonder....
It predates not a few PBers birth.
They’re all looking forward to him either failing miserably to do what he’s said he would, or to succeed at it and show the rest of the country why socialism never works.
Think the Swiss system - where power is genuinely devolved.
It's fuel on the fire, and its naive to think that there isn't a political calculation that there's a reward for helping one group and hope the others dont notice.
Plus it's not as if the upper and middle classes show particularly good examples in child care even when they have plenty of money, e.g. after divorce. For instance, decades ago, one Tory hate campaign against shiftless shaggers on council estates was badly derailed when one cabinet minister turned out to be doing the same, only in rather more comfort ...
'A materstroke McSweeney if I do say so myself'
Five speeding tickets
Won by the PCC
A ban from all driving
Won by Caroline Henree
And she didn't tell anyone
Until she was PCC
Five speeding tickets
Won by the PCC
*Which is why one has to be very careful when reading claims that Holyrood is 'the most devolved whatever in the world'.
If a Parliament is good enough for Scotland it's good enough for England. Cutting England into pieces because the political class think the English less worthwhile than the Scots is not acceptable.