I get the feeling this jury proposal is just a sacrificial lamb to distract people from ID cards and make them think they've got a 'win' if the jury stuff doesn't go through. Meanwhile ID cards (which is taking 1.6bn out of the Justice Department's budget) gets the heat taken off it.
The incompetence of this Government is richly enjoyable, but their ugly authoritarian streak isn't a laughing matter.
Getting rid of jury trials is a hardy annual. It keeps getting suggested. Like ID cards.
Ministers flailing about - “Must do something”
Get handed a thick folder - “Well minister, here’s a policy, all ready to go.”
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Ultimately there likely will be a folding together but it won't be until Farage departs the scene, and the brand will be Conservative. It's much easier to imagine Reform disappearing from the scene than the Tories.
BP Abandons H2Teesside Carbon Capture & Hydrogen Scheme Amid AI Push
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-abandons-h2teesside-carbon-capture-192000443.html ...BP’s decision to abandon its “H2Teesside” project, announced in 2021, will instead allow for the construction of a large artificial intelligence data center at the site. This proposal involves building a data center spanning almost 500,000 square meters, intended to be the largest one in Europe, according to the Financial Times. This plan also has the backing of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The UK government introduced these “AI growth zones” within the AI Opportunities Action Plan in January. As part of the plan, the government offers specific geographic areas to push for the development of artificial intelligence infrastructure. The companies can benefit from this by receiving simplified planning approvals and preferential access to energy, as data centers require massive amounts of electricity.
BP’s “H2Teesside” scheme was intended to produce blue hydrogen by extracting hydrogen from natural gas. The carbon dioxide produced in the process would have been captured and stored. BP’s decision to scrap this project was also influenced by weaker demand for low-carbon hydrogen. Initially, the company expected this project to produce 20% of the targeted production of hydrogen in the UK by 2030. However, the closure of a nearby site owned by the chemical giant Sabic, viewed as a potential customer, reduced the viability of the project. The demand for hydrogen produced this way has long faced challenges due to the high costs associated with its production. This marks a major setback for the UK government’s strategy to accelerate hydrogen production...
So the horseshit proposal (make expensive hydrogen) has been replaced with… bullshit?
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
If that swing was replicated Nationwide, 42 Republicans would lose their seats
If.
Polling in TN-7 suggested the Dems were only 2% behind. So, either:
a) polling failure or
b) polling was correct causing the Republicans to go into high-cost panic mode.
Claiming that the other side spent money is always a good sign of a disappointing result.
A result which would give the Democrats a very handy working majority in the House? I reckon the Democrats will take that disappointment in their stride.
More likely is it will give the Republicans a degre of complacency that in all the circumstances isn't warranted.
Interesting disparity between the urban and rural votes, Dems won almost 80% of the district inc Nashville, GOP 80% in small rural districts.
I don't think that is unusual. What is interesting is that despite wrecking agriculture on an epic scale, the rural voters are still with Trump/MAGA. If you want to look for a metric to change, I would be picking that one.
Noticeably they seem to have finally realised focusing on immigration as the number 1 topic is futile and just boosts Reform. Jenrick and Lam have been less prominent too.
BP Abandons H2Teesside Carbon Capture & Hydrogen Scheme Amid AI Push
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-abandons-h2teesside-carbon-capture-192000443.html ...BP’s decision to abandon its “H2Teesside” project, announced in 2021, will instead allow for the construction of a large artificial intelligence data center at the site. This proposal involves building a data center spanning almost 500,000 square meters, intended to be the largest one in Europe, according to the Financial Times. This plan also has the backing of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The UK government introduced these “AI growth zones” within the AI Opportunities Action Plan in January. As part of the plan, the government offers specific geographic areas to push for the development of artificial intelligence infrastructure. The companies can benefit from this by receiving simplified planning approvals and preferential access to energy, as data centers require massive amounts of electricity.
BP’s “H2Teesside” scheme was intended to produce blue hydrogen by extracting hydrogen from natural gas. The carbon dioxide produced in the process would have been captured and stored. BP’s decision to scrap this project was also influenced by weaker demand for low-carbon hydrogen. Initially, the company expected this project to produce 20% of the targeted production of hydrogen in the UK by 2030. However, the closure of a nearby site owned by the chemical giant Sabic, viewed as a potential customer, reduced the viability of the project. The demand for hydrogen produced this way has long faced challenges due to the high costs associated with its production. This marks a major setback for the UK government’s strategy to accelerate hydrogen production...
That's less LNG to import. Wonder what the economics are for producing green H2 when there's surplus renewable electricity. Diluting domestic gas with H2 was partly to provide a "customer of last resort" to underwrite development of H2 production.
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Freeze the pension and legislate for financial penalties if the hearing finds culpability post departure would be a better option.
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Govt to increase legal aid and criminal solicitor and court and victim and witness support funds, so a few good measures whatever you think of scrapping jury trials for all but the most serious cases
'New Swift Courts where judges handle cases likely to result in sentences of 3 years or less
- Courts, not defendants, deciding which venue hears either way cases
- Judge-only trials for complex fraud and financial offences
- Magistrates’ sentencing powers increased to 18 months, with the potential to rise to 2 years
- £550 million invested in support services for victims and witnesses
- Extra funding so Crown Court judges can sit more days
- Up to £34 million a year added to criminal legal aid advocacy
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
Noticeably they seem to have finally realised focusing on immigration as the number 1 topic is futile and just boosts Reform. Jenrick and Lam have been less prominent too.
I was speaking to an old friend last week. He's quite a cynical guy and had never had any time for the Tories, but to my surprise he stated that he rather liked Kemi. A straw in the wind perhaps.
If that swing was replicated Nationwide, 42 Republicans would lose their seats
If.
Polling in TN-7 suggested the Dems were only 2% behind. So, either:
a) polling failure or
b) polling was correct causing the Republicans to go into high-cost panic mode.
Claiming that the other side spent money is always a good sign of a disappointing result.
A result which would give the Democrats a very handy working majority in the House? I reckon the Democrats will take that disappointment in their stride.
More likely is it will give the Republicans a degre of complacency that in all the circumstances isn't warranted.
Interesting disparity between the urban and rural votes, Dems won almost 80% of the district inc Nashville, GOP 80% in small rural districts.
So it seems her anti-Nashville comments weren't that big of issue, but her anti-country music comments were.
I don't like much modern country music up to much. Even the Handsome Family haven't done anything decent in decades.
Though the Democrats haven't won rural Tennessee since 1996 under President Bill Clinton and only then helped by Perot and his Reform Party splitting the GOP vote
This from yesterday.
National Republicans are scrambling to avert disaster today in a Tennessee district Trump won by +20 points
“If our victory margin is single digits, the conference may come unhinged,” one senior House Republican said. A loss would be catastrophic.
Unhinged? How are we expected to tell the difference?
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Ultimately there likely will be a folding together but it won't be until Farage departs the scene, and the brand will be Conservative. It's much easier to imagine Reform disappearing from the scene than the Tories.
It's hard to think of a combined name that isn't an oxymoron.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
All Scenarios possible but if Kemi lost a VONC or stepped down most Kemi and all Cleverly backing MPs would back Cleverly to replace her as leader not Jenrick, maybe even enough for a coronation. Or for Stride if Cleverly decides to back him and run for London Mayor instead.
So Scenario 2 most likely, Scenario 1 may also still lead to a hung Parliament due to anti Reformed Con tactical voting
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
Its hard to imagine any mergers or coalitions involving any major party. Everyone looks at the LDs since the coalition. I know they're happy, but they're mad to be so.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
He’s very sure he’s right though. I envy that. I end up arguing three sides of the same point in my head.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
The chances of Kemi stepping down are dropping rapidly. She's already got the Tories regularly ahead of Labour. If she can start reducing the gap to Reform, she'll be kept on.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
All Scenarios possible but if Kemi lost a VONC or stepped down most Kemi and all Cleverly backing MPs would back Cleverly to replace her as leader not Jenrick, maybe even enough for a coronation. Or for Stride if Cleverly decides to back him and run for London Mayor instead.
So Scenario 2 most likely, Scenario 1 may also still lead to a hung Parliament due to anti Reformed Con tactical voting
If neither Cleverly (or Kemi if she stays Tory leader) nor Farage won the next GE both would likely resign and then Jenrick would try and seize his chance to lead the Tories and a reunited populist right and absorb most of post Farage Reform too.
Cleverly would be more likely to gain tactical Labour and LD tactical votes to beat Reform at the next GE than Jenrick too, so Jenrick might be better to wait
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
I don’t think anyone, probably not even SKS himself, would disagree with the last sentence
BP Abandons H2Teesside Carbon Capture & Hydrogen Scheme Amid AI Push
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-abandons-h2teesside-carbon-capture-192000443.html ...BP’s decision to abandon its “H2Teesside” project, announced in 2021, will instead allow for the construction of a large artificial intelligence data center at the site. This proposal involves building a data center spanning almost 500,000 square meters, intended to be the largest one in Europe, according to the Financial Times. This plan also has the backing of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The UK government introduced these “AI growth zones” within the AI Opportunities Action Plan in January. As part of the plan, the government offers specific geographic areas to push for the development of artificial intelligence infrastructure. The companies can benefit from this by receiving simplified planning approvals and preferential access to energy, as data centers require massive amounts of electricity.
BP’s “H2Teesside” scheme was intended to produce blue hydrogen by extracting hydrogen from natural gas. The carbon dioxide produced in the process would have been captured and stored. BP’s decision to scrap this project was also influenced by weaker demand for low-carbon hydrogen. Initially, the company expected this project to produce 20% of the targeted production of hydrogen in the UK by 2030. However, the closure of a nearby site owned by the chemical giant Sabic, viewed as a potential customer, reduced the viability of the project. The demand for hydrogen produced this way has long faced challenges due to the high costs associated with its production. This marks a major setback for the UK government’s strategy to accelerate hydrogen production...
So the horseshit proposal (make expensive hydrogen) has been replaced with… bullshit?
It's an unambiguous sign that the combination of expensive energy and expensive raw materials is a deeply unattractive one for the chemicals industry.
However much ministers slap "world leading " labels on it.
And that we don't have enough money to bribe them to think otherwise.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
The chances of Kemi stepping down are dropping rapidly. She's already got the Tories regularly ahead of Labour. If she can start reducing the gap to Reform, she'll be kept on.
She is reasonable value and an excellent trading bet at close to 20 for next PM.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
He’s very sure he’s right though. I envy that. I end up arguing three sides of the same point in my head.
What happens to the councils outside London & outside the big cities "greater area" (Manchester has shown a version of the Seal model can work within a city) though ?
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
As a resident of Woking, I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. On the one hand, I am filled with horror at the thought of genuinely being on the hook for the debt. On the other, local house building targets wouldn't exist so the urge to "do something" might not have been there in the first place.
You can certainly view it as such. You're aware of the concept of civic duty ?
So you believe in Conscription then?
If there were an urgent need for it, yes. There isn't.
What or who would define "need"?
Is there a "need" for Jury Service?
Note to editors: Sunil is one of that intrepid band who have been "called up" twice.
Me too. Heard four cases. Three were a complete waste of time.
I would argue against it's being a serious inconvenience. (So were the years I spent as a school governor.) But on balance I think it a worthwhile inconvenience.
And if course a better funded and organised system would be significantly less of an inconvenience, along with addressing the backlog.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
It’s Punch and Judy stuff but I think it’s the right call for the Tories at the moment. They are in danger of being crowded out of the debate by Reform and nobody listening to them.
Kemi has learned that if she wants airtime she’s going to need to get some of these Commons performances onto social media. Going in big and punchy is the way to go while the Tories are where they are in the polls, IMHO.
I would like to see more serious policymaking and strategising from the Tories. But not sure the floor of the HOC at PMQs is the right place for it.
BREXIT IS BACK - story courtesy of @patrickkmaguire and The State of It podcast
Sir Keir Starmer has signalled that the government will intensify its criticism of Brexit as the Labour Party moves to put relations with Brussels at the heart of its campaign against Reform UK
In a speech in the City of London on Monday the prime minister denounced Britain’s departure from the European Union as an “utterly reckless” template for foreign policy and criticised the “wild promises” of those who had campaigned to leave in 2016
The prime minister was his party’s leading advocate for a second referendum before Brexit was implemented in 2020 and his strategists, anxious about alienating voters in Labour seats that voted to leave, have hitherto been wary of reopening the political argument or appearing critical of the result
However, Downing Street has been emboldened to take a more direct approach by opinion polling that shows as many as six in ten voters now believe Britain should pursue a closer economic relationship with Europe
The Times has been told that Starmer’s close ally Nick Thomas-Symonds, the paymaster-general, has been promoted to full cabinet rank as the government seeks to intensify talks over a closer relationship
I mean he is correct in saying Brexit (at least as implemented) has been a failure, but it would be terrible tactics politically to focus on this unless he plans to dramatically and quickly change our relationship with the EU - which seems close to implausible.
He needs the government to do stuff to make peoples lives better and politically perhaps more importantly, start to explain and claim credit for it.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
As a resident of Woking, I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. On the one hand, I am filled with horror at the thought of genuinely being on the hook for the debt. On the other, local house building targets wouldn't exist so the urge to "do something" might not have been there in the first place.
Woking is an extreme example of mismanagement but there's an inherent issue for every Dunny-on-the-Wold (I'll include Bassetlaw/Nottinghamshire in this) council where the economics ex central funding would be (even more) horrendous than they already are.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
Its hard to imagine any mergers or coalitions involving any major party. Everyone looks at the LDs since the coalition. I know they're happy, but they're mad to be so.
Aren't (post-election) coalitions and mergers very different things? The coalition went badly for the LDs, but the merger between the Liberals and SDP was more successful. The threat in a coalition is that the junior partner gets shafted, but there is no junior partner in a merger: you're merged into one thing.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
Except UK is full of retired NIMBYs, who are much easier to fight on a national policy level (not that anyone is) than a local one. I think that's a lot of where Bart's coming from.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
Its hard to imagine any mergers or coalitions involving any major party. Everyone looks at the LDs since the coalition. I know they're happy, but they're mad to be so.
Aren't (post-election) coalitions and mergers very different things? The coalition went badly for the LDs, but the merger between the Liberals and SDP was more successful. The threat in a coalition is that the junior partner gets shafted, but there is no junior partner in a merger: you're merged into one thing.
A merger of Reform and the Tories might well involve more policy contradictions than the one between the Libs and the SDems, I think ?
(And it's not as though the latter combination doesn't have its issues.)
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
The chances of Kemi stepping down are dropping rapidly. She's already got the Tories regularly ahead of Labour. If she can start reducing the gap to Reform, she'll be kept on.
In the last 20 polls on the Wikipedia page, the Tories are ahead of Labour on 5, tied on 3, and behind on 12.
Anyway, if the Conservatives don't have restoring trial by jury and references to Magna Carta in their next manifesto they'll be missing a huge open goal.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
It’s Punch and Judy stuff but I think it’s the right call for the Tories at the moment. They are in danger of being crowded out of the debate by Reform and nobody listening to them.
Kemi has learned that if she wants airtime she’s going to need to get some of these Commons performances onto social media. Going in big and punchy is the way to go while the Tories are where they are in the polls, IMHO.
I would like to see more serious policymaking and strategising from the Tories. But not sure the floor of the HOC at PMQs is the right place for it.
I don’t agree this substance lite Punch and Judy heavy is right for the conservatives at the moment. Not at all.
This particular moment is May 3rd 2029. Everything in politics is for the long term moment of next General Election. One of the problems for the Conservatives now is the economy is beginning to turn round, it will still take a while but will reduce interest rates and cost of living issues. This was always going to happen whoever won the last election, but Labour will get the credit for it.
PB being a brains trust and loves its political history, is there any learning from history that can help Tory front bench, about how to strike blows and resonate with voters when sitting government are presiding over an improving economy? Is there anything that drew blood in first two Blair terms, or for Labour in 1980’s?
I can remember Balls and millipede giving it a go in 2010-2015, plans how to cut energy bills that caught public attention and pressured government. you can say they still lost in the end, but it could have helped them to better result than otherwise, and by magnitude better than tories rude and angry without substance approach of the last week ultimately not helping their electoral chances.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
Except UK is full of retired NIMBYs, who are much easier to fight on a national policy level (not that anyone is) than a local one. I think that's a lot of where Bart's coming from.
The ideologically libertarian way to put this is that if you need the government to make rules, they should be objective and generalized. If you need a lot of local knowledge to make decisions properly, you're probably micromanaging too much.
A practical way to see this distinction is if you compare Japan, which has planning rules but they're mostly like "if there is a slope, your building must be at least twice as far from the slope as the height of the slope, and this will be checked by a man with a tape measure", with Britain, which has rules like "you should not be out of character with the general vibe of the place, and a committee of elderly people will tell you whether what you want to build does that or not".
You can certainly view it as such. You're aware of the concept of civic duty ?
So you believe in Conscription then?
If there were an urgent need for it, yes. There isn't.
What or who would define "need"?
Is there a "need" for Jury Service?
Note to editors: Sunil is one of that intrepid band who have been "called up" twice.
Me too. Heard four cases. Three were a complete waste of time.
I would argue against it's being a serious inconvenience. (So were the years I spent as a school governor.) But on balance I think it a worthwhile inconvenience.
It was certainly enlightening and I wasn't bothered by inconvenience to myself, but you couldn't help but be struck by the time wasted on three trivial cases - a scuffle outside a night club, the theft of a baby buggy from a front garden, and ABH arising from a minor alcohol related domestic dispute. I am sure all three could have been much better handled by a single judge, at huge cost saving.
The other case involved the handling of £51k in counterfeit. I think we have discussed this before. A judge would almost certainly have dismissed it, but the jury convicted. We took a substantive view rather than the technically correct one. I think you disapproved, and I can understand that, but have never had any qualms about our verdict and would find the same way again today.
Would like to discuss this further but have to go out. Sometimes life gets in the way of PB.
Anyway, if the Conservatives don't have restoring trial by jury and references to Magna Carta in their next manifesto they'll be missing a huge open goal.
Restore trial by jury, except for inner city Labour and Green voting areas with lots of statues of controversial figures from the British Empire era?
Yes, the biggest winners from public inquiries are almost always the well paid lawyers who participate in them more than the victims the inquiries were set up to help change things for
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
Anyway, if the Conservatives don't have restoring trial by jury and references to Magna Carta in their next manifesto they'll be missing a huge open goal.
"Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae."
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
Except that’s not true, Thatcher picked her battles wisely.
For example she caved into the miners in 1981 because the government wasn’t ready for a strike, by 1984 the government was well prepared and crushed the miners.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
She is being noticed and being feisty is not a negative and I expect her mps are quietly pleased at her improving ratings
Of course she will attract criticism from some quarters, but then she has very much better ratings than Starmer and Reeves
I should say my wife is quite fascinated by her and approves
Isn't there something in Thomas More's Utopia about all the gold and silver being taken by the state to fashion chains to be worn by those who had risen to wealth by improper means ?
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
The chances of Kemi stepping down are dropping rapidly. She's already got the Tories regularly ahead of Labour. If she can start reducing the gap to Reform, she'll be kept on.
In the last 20 polls on the Wikipedia page, the Tories are ahead of Labour on 5, tied on 3, and behind on 12.
If they are ahead on Mondays and behind the other 6 days, that would still be regularly.....
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
Except that’s not true, Thatcher picked her battles wisely.
For example she caved into the miners in 1981 because the government wasn’t ready for a strike, by 1984 the government was well prepared and crushed the miners.
Thatcher still fought the miners unions but yes she was clever enough to know when she was ready to go on the attack and when she needed to build resources first
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
Except that’s not true, Thatcher picked her battles wisely.
For example she caved into the miners in 1981 because the government wasn’t ready for a strike, by 1984 the government was well prepared and crushed the miners.
She started off picking her battles wisely- see also the public pay increases in 1979.
As advisers were replaced by courtiers, that wisdom rather left her.
Isn't there something in Thomas More's Utopia about all the gold and silver being taken by the state to fashion chains to be worn by those who had risen to wealth by improper means ?
Isn't there something in Thomas More's Utopia about all the gold and silver being taken by the state to fashion chains to be worn by those who had risen to wealth by improper means ?
Kind of...
"They eat and drink from earthen ware or glass, which make an agreeable appearance though they be of little value; while their chamber-pots and close-stools are made of gold and silver; and this not only in their public halls, but in their private houses. Of the same metals they also make chains and fetters for their slaves; on some of whom, as a badge of infamy, they hang an ear-ring of gold, and make others wear a chain or a coronet of the same metal. And thus they take care, by all possible means, to render gold and silver of no esteem."
Anyway, if the Conservatives don't have restoring trial by jury and references to Magna Carta in their next manifesto they'll be missing a huge open goal.
"Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae."
We'll have none of that foreign rubbish here, thank you very much,
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Freeze the pension and legislate for financial penalties if the hearing finds culpability post departure would be a better option.
Hmmm.
I was thinking more of impalement combined with crucifixion, while waiting for the outcome of the tribunal.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
For full transparency. my little essay above is what might be described as a Centrist Dad rehashing of Murray Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism. Not an original thought.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
It’s Punch and Judy stuff but I think it’s the right call for the Tories at the moment. They are in danger of being crowded out of the debate by Reform and nobody listening to them.
Kemi has learned that if she wants airtime she’s going to need to get some of these Commons performances onto social media. Going in big and punchy is the way to go while the Tories are where they are in the polls, IMHO.
I would like to see more serious policymaking and strategising from the Tories. But not sure the floor of the HOC at PMQs is the right place for it.
I don’t agree this substance lite Punch and Judy heavy is right for the conservatives at the moment. Not at all.
This particular moment is May 3rd 2029. Everything in politics is for the long term moment of next General Election. One of the problems for the Conservatives now is the economy is beginning to turn round, it will still take a while but will reduce interest rates and cost of living issues. This was always going to happen whoever won the last election, but Labour will get the credit for it.
PB being a brains trust and loves its political history, is there any learning from history that can help Tory front bench, about how to strike blows and resonate with voters when sitting government are presiding over an improving economy? Is there anything that drew blood in first two Blair terms, or for Labour in 1980’s?
I can remember Balls and millipede giving it a go in 2010-2015, plans how to cut energy bills that caught public attention and pressured government. you can say they still lost in the end, but it could have helped them to better result than otherwise, and by magnitude better than tories rude and angry without substance approach of the last week ultimately not helping their electoral chances.
This is starting from the premise that people will be feeling better off in 2029. We simply don’t know that to be the case.
Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree on this one. I think Kemi is playing a decent enough game, given the Tories’ starting position, right now. But they still have a lot of serious work to do on policy and pitch.
Not only is Rubio skipping the NATO foreign ministers' meeting, a break from 20 years of practice, but the US is sending @DeputySecState, a man who publicly questioned NATO's need to exist less than six months ago. Message received loud & clear. https://x.com/shashj/status/1996125750148190601
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
This is why I like the Mayoralities. They are big enough to wield power and small enough to still have a personal vote. Consider Ray Mallon (Middlesbrough), Andy Burnham (Manchester), Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone (London).
Isn't this just Farage doing what he always does? I think he enjoys the limelight but would run a mile from political office.
It’s always easier to be in permanent opposition, able to suggest solutions and ideas that never have to be actually implemented.
Unfortunately the current government appears to have arrived with no ideas, and the previous government had run out of them.
As many of their newly elected councillors running an administration, they’ll be discovering that governing is hard hard hard. A series of spinning plates full of shit, surrounded by electric fans.
I don't think incompetence in office will hit Reform hard enough. A recent example:
That situation would have applied whoever ran the county. There is a consultation on the budget tomorrow and the details have been published on the council site. Reform have made some savings but the demands on councils and budgets across the board are going up. That’s not incompetence it’s a broken funding model for local govt.
Maybe. But it still leaves Reform heading up the shit-sandwich buffet...
What is Reform's policy for mending the broken funding model for local government? 3 words: Close. Things. Down.
Nope
It’s the same as any other local Govt
More.govt.money
I refer the honourable members to my long standing answer on this. Abolish local government, standardise services nationwide, and reap the benefits of doing it all at scale.
Solved.
Indeed. Alternatively hand local powers back to people and get the busybodies out of the way.
Anything that is standardised nationwide, like SEND/Care etc should be dealt with and funded nationwide.
Anything that is a choice, should be chosen by the individuals concerned.
Get rid of the local councils, elections and abolish that whole layer of bureaucracy and crap.
Getting rid of local councils will reduce headcount by about 2mn. Headcount and services have been reduced over the years. Current figures for Central Government are 4.04mn (2025) up from 2.3mn in 1999. Total employed is 34mn or 75% of those of workforce age.
How does everyone feel about Bart's suggestion of more central government?
Its more a suggestion for less government, than more central government.
Much of what local government funds currently comes from central government diktats and obligations anyway. Councils are legally obliged to follow through with care and SEND and other stuff that central government insists upon. If central government insists upon it, then it should fund it. Care that is obligated to be provided should be funded through the Department of Health and Social Care. SEND should be funded through the Department of Education.
Local funding should be for local choices. Of which there is precious little anyway, so either free that up, or abolish the whole lot of it.
Since they are legally obliged to follow through with those, they are obligated to provide it. I am not an English teacher, but that is proper grammar, AFAIK.
Isn't this just Farage doing what he always does? I think he enjoys the limelight but would run a mile from political office.
It’s always easier to be in permanent opposition, able to suggest solutions and ideas that never have to be actually implemented.
Unfortunately the current government appears to have arrived with no ideas, and the previous government had run out of them.
As many of their newly elected councillors running an administration, they’ll be discovering that governing is hard hard hard. A series of spinning plates full of shit, surrounded by electric fans.
I don't think incompetence in office will hit Reform hard enough. A recent example:
That situation would have applied whoever ran the county. There is a consultation on the budget tomorrow and the details have been published on the council site. Reform have made some savings but the demands on councils and budgets across the board are going up. That’s not incompetence it’s a broken funding model for local govt.
Maybe. But it still leaves Reform heading up the shit-sandwich buffet...
What is Reform's policy for mending the broken funding model for local government? 3 words: Close. Things. Down.
Nope
It’s the same as any other local Govt
More.govt.money
Not quite in Durham you also have lower council tax grants so the poorest now have to find more money to pay a council tax bill they previously didn’t need to pay
Quite right too. They should contribute something.
Some perspective required
Durham previously let the ‘poorest’ have a 100% rebate on their council tax. This will now be 90%. Far more generous than most other councils including Labour ones.
Feckin unbelievable, why would anyone on low wages bother working , far better to lie in your kip and get showered with benefits and all tax free. It is mental.
Not only is Rubio skipping the NATO foreign ministers' meeting, a break from 20 years of practice, but the US is sending @DeputySecState, a man who publicly questioned NATO's need to exist less than six months ago. Message received loud & clear. https://x.com/shashj/status/1996125750148190601
The message will be heard with fingers in ears rather than loud and clear. Paralysis is far easier for our leaders to cope with than accepting Trumpian reality.
... while Ms Reeves did win the under-14 title for the British Women’s Chess Association (BWCA) Girls Championship in 1993, there was an important distinction.
Mr Edmans explained: “That is not the British girls’ championship, it is clearly defined as the girl who does best in the British championship. “She may well have won titles, but the title of British girls’ champion is a specific event. The BWCA has its own championship and then you are the BWCA champion.” https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2141580/rachel-reeves-left-redfaced-truth
Good luck explaining that to the public, whether you are on the side that Reeves lied or was truthful. It makes the different boxing world titles look straightforward.
Anyway, if the Conservatives don't have restoring trial by jury and references to Magna Carta in their next manifesto they'll be missing a huge open goal.
"Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae."
The largesse of the British Empire – railways, parliamentary democracy and trial by jury.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
Except that’s not true, Thatcher picked her battles wisely.
For example she caved into the miners in 1981 because the government wasn’t ready for a strike, by 1984 the government was well prepared and crushed the miners.
Thatcher still fought the miners unions but yes she was clever enough to know when she was ready to go on the attack and when she needed to build resources first
TSE is absolutely right. I have studied Lady Thatcher, I feel I know Lady Thatcher, and Kemi Badenoch ain’t no Lady Thatcher.
Kemi and her team need to go back and study Lady Thatcher in 70s and 80s and learn that it was all based on substance.
All Kemi and her team are doing is the Farage waving angry fist tactic, which only Reform can get away with precisely because they are not Labour or the Conservatives, who are the ones Farage is waving his angry fist at for their time in government.
I’ll give you classic example of this difference, Kemi more Farage than Thatcher from just over an hour ago. Well if you can look beyond how angry and salty Kemi is coming across to what she is actually saying, the attack line at PMQs was to bash Starmer with media report an unnamed minster complained about being beaten up and done over by Reeves as she built the additional headroom and borrowing repayment the markets loved and the 2 child cap lift sop for own party at same time.
If you can’t see what is wrong with that let me explain it. When Kemi is PM she will actually want her chancellor to strong arm cabinet colleagues to build the budget war chest that builds additional headroom pays off borrowing the market loves and the tax cut sop to her own party.
What you are praising isn’t actual substance, it’s just fluff the growth industry of political media likes.
Seeing Nigel’s angry fist waved at them and in turn waving their own angry fist at Labour does won’t work for the Conservatives. They need to be for something, they need to be distinct, they need policy differentials. They need to stop living in the moment and work NOW on that distinct and for something identity 3rd May 2029.
Edit. Going out to talk to sheep, they have more political acumen.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
Except that’s not true, Thatcher picked her battles wisely.
For example she caved into the miners in 1981 because the government wasn’t ready for a strike, by 1984 the government was well prepared and crushed the miners.
Thatcher still fought the miners unions but yes she was clever enough to know when she was ready to go on the attack and when she needed to build resources first
TSE is absolutely right. I have studied Lady Thatcher, I feel I know Lady Thatcher, and Kemi Badenoch ain’t no Lady Thatcher.
Kemi and her team need to go back and study Lady Thatcher in 70s and 80s and learn that it was all based on substance.
All Kemi and her team are doing is the Farage waving angry fist tactic, which only Reform can get away with precisely because they are not Labour or the Conservatives, who are the ones Farage is waving his angry fist at for their time in government.
I’ll give you classic example of this difference, Kemi more Farage than Thatcher from just over an hour ago. Well if you can look beyond how angry and salty Kemi is coming across to what she is actually saying, the attack line at PMQs was to bash Starmer with media report an unnamed minster complained about being beaten up and done over by Reeves as she built the additional headroom and borrowing repayment the markets loved and the 2 child cap lift sop for own party at same time.
If you can’t see what is wrong with that let me explain it. When Kemi is PM she will actually want her chancellor to strong arm cabinet colleagues to build the budget war chest that builds additional headroom pays off borrowing the market loves and the tax cut sop to her own party.
What you are praising isn’t actual substance, it’s just fluff the growth industry of political media likes.
Seeing Nigel’s angry fist waved at them and in turn waving their own angry fist at Labour does won’t work for the Conservatives. They need to be for something, they need to be distinct, they need policy differentials. They need to stop living in the moment and work NOW on that distinct and for something identity 3rd May 2029.
Edit. Going out to talk to sheep, they have more political acumen.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
Except UK is full of retired NIMBYs, who are much easier to fight on a national policy level (not that anyone is) than a local one. I think that's a lot of where Bart's coming from.
The ideologically libertarian way to put this is that if you need the government to make rules, they should be objective and generalized. If you need a lot of local knowledge to make decisions properly, you're probably micromanaging too much.
A practical way to see this distinction is if you compare Japan, which has planning rules but they're mostly like "if there is a slope, your building must be at least twice as far from the slope as the height of the slope, and this will be checked by a man with a tape measure", with Britain, which has rules like "you should not be out of character with the general vibe of the place, and a committee of elderly people will tell you whether what you want to build does that or not".
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
This is why I like the Mayoralities. They are big enough to wield power and small enough to still have a personal vote. Consider Ray Mallon (Middlesbrough), Andy Burnham (Manchester), Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone (London).
See also US state governors and German provincial leaders.
The end of the sentence left hanging, but pretty obviously “…not Britain”.
Bizarre though when a. The Soviet Union was the ally, not Russia, and b. It was a communist state that outlawed organised religion.
It is not bizarre. It is a collection of the worlds richest billionaires working out how they can share the most power. Religion and politics are tools not objectives.
The end of the sentence left hanging, but pretty obviously “…not Britain”.
Bizarre though when a. The Soviet Union was the ally, not Russia, and b. It was a communist state that outlawed organised religion.
It is not bizarre. It is a collection of the worlds richest billionaires working out how they can share the most power. Religion and politics are tools not objectives.
It's still rank stupidity, even in that context. The voice of experience:
https://x.com/Billbrowder/status/1995051199259635921 The Wall Street Journal alleges that the real motivation behind Trump’s eagerness to force Ukraine into an ugly surrender is the idea that a lot of people close to him can make a lot of money doing business and deals in Russia.
If this is true, beyond the disgusting morality of this and the huge geopolitical risks that it creates, none of these people salivating over their future riches are going to make a penny, and perhaps do a lot worse.
I was once the largest foreign investor in Russia and I can say with certainty that the Russians aren’t going to let anyone profit in any way. They will talk nice at the outset to attract the investment, but once it’s there, they will steal, defraud, arrest, torture or even kill to make sure that no American makes any money. I’ve seen it so many times it’s almost universal.
So, this shocking initiative is not only terrible policy, it’s spectacularly stupid business.
I don't think burning the accused to death at the stake is within the range of their powers.
I'm wondering what to make of that post. Are you seriously suggesting that burning at the stake should be an acceptable punishment in this case? Or any case, indeed?
I don't think burning the accused to death at the stake is within the range of their powers.
I'm wondering what to make of that post. Are you seriously suggesting that burning at the stake should be an acceptable punishment in this case? Or any case, indeed?
For cyclists ignoring pedestrian red lights, it should be mandatory.
Comments
Ministers flailing about - “Must do something”
Get handed a thick folder - “Well minister, here’s a policy, all ready to go.”
https://metro.co.uk/2025/12/01/top-police-chief-sent-unsolicited-dick-pics-junior-officer-25041689/
Retired hours before getting binned.
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Wonder what the economics are for producing green H2 when there's surplus renewable electricity.
Diluting domestic gas with H2 was partly to provide a "customer of last resort" to underwrite development of H2 production.
'New Swift Courts where judges handle cases likely to result in sentences of 3 years or less
- Courts, not defendants, deciding which venue hears either way cases
- Judge-only trials for complex fraud and financial offences
- Magistrates’ sentencing powers increased to 18 months, with the potential to rise to 2 years
- £550 million invested in support services for victims and witnesses
- Extra funding so Crown Court judges can sit more days
- Up to £34 million a year added to criminal legal aid advocacy
- Up to £92 million a year added to funding for criminal solicitors'
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1995841780688802169?s=20
Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?)
Jenrick replaces her (75% chance)
jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%)
Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition.
Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2:
Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?)
Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance)
Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green.
Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3:
Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?)
Jenrick replaces her (75% chance)
jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%)
Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green.
Chance of it happening about 40%?
So Scenario 2 most likely, Scenario 1 may also still lead to a hung Parliament due to anti Reformed Con tactical voting
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
Cleverly would be more likely to gain tactical Labour and LD tactical votes to beat Reform at the next GE than Jenrick too, so Jenrick might be better to wait
However much ministers slap "world leading " labels on it.
And that we don't have enough money to bribe them to think otherwise.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Lawyers benefit pot for 🎄..💩
But on balance I think it a worthwhile inconvenience.
And if course a better funded and organised system would be significantly less of an inconvenience, along with addressing the backlog.
Kemi has learned that if she wants airtime she’s going to need to get some of these Commons performances onto social media. Going in big and punchy is the way to go while the Tories are where they are in the polls, IMHO.
I would like to see more serious policymaking and strategising from the Tories. But not sure the floor of the HOC at PMQs is the right place for it.
He needs the government to do stuff to make peoples lives better and politically perhaps more importantly, start to explain and claim credit for it.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
(And it's not as though the latter combination doesn't have its issues.)
This particular moment is May 3rd 2029. Everything in politics is for the long term moment of next General Election. One of the problems for the Conservatives now is the economy is beginning to turn round, it will still take a while but will reduce interest rates and cost of living issues. This was always going to happen whoever won the last election, but Labour will get the credit for it.
PB being a brains trust and loves its political history, is there any learning from history that can help Tory front bench, about how to strike blows and resonate with voters when sitting government are presiding over an improving economy? Is there anything that drew blood in first two Blair terms, or for Labour in 1980’s?
I can remember Balls and millipede giving it a go in 2010-2015, plans how to cut energy bills that caught public attention and pressured government. you can say they still lost in the end, but it could have helped them to better result than otherwise, and by magnitude better than tories rude and angry without substance approach of the last week ultimately not helping their electoral chances.
Why do voters send fruitcakes to parliament.
A practical way to see this distinction is if you compare Japan, which has planning rules but they're mostly like "if there is a slope, your building must be at least twice as far from the slope as the height of the slope, and this will be checked by a man with a tape measure", with Britain, which has rules like "you should not be out of character with the general vibe of the place, and a committee of elderly people will tell you whether what you want to build does that or not".
The other case involved the handling of £51k in counterfeit. I think we have discussed this before. A judge would almost certainly have dismissed it, but the jury convicted. We took a substantive view rather than the technically correct one. I think you disapproved, and I can understand that, but have never had any qualms about our verdict and would find the same way again today.
Would like to discuss this further but have to go out. Sometimes life gets in the way of PB.
A bientot,
For example she caved into the miners in 1981 because the government wasn’t ready for a strike, by 1984 the government was well prepared and crushed the miners.
Of course she will attract criticism from some quarters, but then she has very much better ratings than Starmer and Reeves
I should say my wife is quite fascinated by her and approves
As advisers were replaced by courtiers, that wisdom rather left her.
As I said earlier we may even get a hung parliament with a Reform/Con majority in England but not in the UK overall
"They eat and drink from earthen ware or glass, which make an agreeable appearance though they be of little value; while their chamber-pots and close-stools are made of gold and silver; and this not only in their public halls, but in their private houses. Of the same metals they also make chains and fetters for their slaves; on some of whom, as a badge of infamy, they hang an ear-ring of gold, and make others wear a chain or a coronet of the same metal. And thus they take care, by all possible means, to render gold and silver of no esteem."
I was thinking more of impalement combined with crucifixion, while waiting for the outcome of the tribunal.
But your suggestion can go on The List.
Anyway, we’ll agree to disagree on this one. I think Kemi is playing a decent enough game, given the Tories’ starting position, right now. But they still have a lot of serious work to do on policy and pitch.
https://news.sky.com/story/nursery-worker-45-pleads-guilty-to-26-serious-sexual-offences-against-children-13478610
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3dscBHT-kI
@DeputySecState, a man who publicly questioned NATO's need to exist less than six months ago. Message received loud & clear.
https://x.com/shashj/status/1996125750148190601
Since they are legally obliged to follow through with those, they are obligated to provide it. I am not an English teacher, but that is proper grammar, AFAIK.
Steve Bannon says the US should ally with Russia:
“Russia is a devoutly Christian nation and was our true ally in WWII.”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1995893766863892742
I saw pale kings and princes too,
Pale warriors, death-pale were they all;
They cried—‘La Belle Dame sans Merci
Thee hath in thrall!’
I saw their starved lips in the gloam,
With horrid warning gapèd wide,
And I awoke and found me here,
On the cold hill’s side.
And this is why I sojourn here,
Alone and palely loitering,
Though the sedge is withered from the lake,
And no birds sing.
Kemi and her team need to go back and study Lady Thatcher in 70s and 80s and learn that it was all based on substance.
All Kemi and her team are doing is the Farage waving angry fist tactic, which only Reform can get away with precisely because they are not Labour or the Conservatives, who are the ones Farage is waving his angry fist at for their time in government.
I’ll give you classic example of this difference, Kemi more Farage than Thatcher from just over an hour ago. Well if you can look beyond how angry and salty Kemi is coming across to what she is actually saying, the attack line at PMQs was to bash Starmer with media report an unnamed minster complained about being beaten up and done over by Reeves as she built the additional headroom and borrowing repayment the markets loved and the 2 child cap lift sop for own party at same time.
If you can’t see what is wrong with that let me explain it. When Kemi is PM she will actually want her chancellor to strong arm cabinet colleagues to build the budget war chest that builds additional headroom pays off borrowing the market loves and the tax cut sop to her own party.
What you are praising isn’t actual substance, it’s just fluff the growth industry of political media likes.
Seeing Nigel’s angry fist waved at them and in turn waving their own angry fist at Labour does won’t work for the Conservatives. They need to be for something, they need to be distinct, they need policy differentials. They need to stop living in the moment and work NOW on that distinct and for something identity 3rd May 2029.
Edit. Going out to talk to sheep, they have more political acumen.
Bizarre though when a. The Soviet Union was the ally, not Russia, and b. It was a communist state that outlawed organised religion.
The voice of experience:
https://x.com/Billbrowder/status/1995051199259635921
The Wall Street Journal alleges that the real motivation behind Trump’s eagerness to force Ukraine into an ugly surrender is the idea that a lot of people close to him can make a lot of money doing business and deals in Russia.
If this is true, beyond the disgusting morality of this and the huge geopolitical risks that it creates, none of these people salivating over their future riches are going to make a penny, and perhaps do a lot worse.
I was once the largest foreign investor in Russia and I can say with certainty that the Russians aren’t going to let anyone profit in any way. They will talk nice at the outset to attract the investment, but once it’s there, they will steal, defraud, arrest, torture or even kill to make sure that no American makes any money. I’ve seen it so many times it’s almost universal.
So, this shocking initiative is not only terrible policy, it’s spectacularly stupid business.
She should have a word with the Daily Mail, which was recommending this course of action to its gullible readers.
A bit like Lammys plans for justice.
IE The Jury's out on that one