Because it has 60,000 staff and £160 a chair is good value?
Not just chairs but desks too. As the tweet makes clear.
It may well be about saving money.
If you have staff sitting at a desk x hours a day, then you have an obligation to provide furniture that protects the staff against bad back, RSI etc.
Plenty of companies have been sued and had to make large settlements for this.
One reason for the popularity of the Herman Miller Aeron chairs in offices, was that they provided a bulletproof protection against such claims - “We spent over a thousand per person on buying the most ergonomic chairs on the planet”. I was told, by an HR person, that buying them meant that the company insurance policy against such things was a fraction of what it otherwise would be.
So you get expensive chairs, monitor arms (easy adjustment) and the latest - the powered, adjustable height desks.
Yes, a typical office worker (public or private sector) spends a large portion of their life in their chair. Having a comfortable one is important and a good use of £££. It's no different to making sure our soldiers have proper boots.
If you give your soldiers crap boots though it provides them with an incentive to kill the enemy. I believe this approach has typically worked well for the Russians.
It's so left field I wonder what the long term agenda is for reform - actively building social housing?
The article is about Right to buy - which is different to Help to buy.
Yep I'm an idiot - but the fact that the Telegraph is saying right to buy (THE Thatcherite policy) was a bad idea with serious consequences is incredibly interesting.
Are we really saying that a council could not create a dwelling for less than £440,000. That's an endightment of current building costs, planning laws, council efficiency, and half a dozen other things before it's an endightment of Right to buy.
Yes, it is.
The crapulence of what is actually built for that money is another indictment.
In recent years, we have seen properties torn down as irredeemably defective which are a year or two old.
In some cases *before completion*
Building standards were higher before all the Polish and Lithuanian builders went home.
Nope. Barrat having been building shit for years.
With Polish labour. And all the other Eastern Europeans.
It’s a simple thing, that the Victorians understood. Hell, the Medievals had a clue on the subject.
If you have a standard, you get two things. A potentially better product for the consumer. You also create an opportunity for the unscrupulous.
A simple example is the minimum wage. As it goes up, this increases the incentives to pay people less.
During the early 2000s my relative who runs a building company tried to get something done about the following - in whole swathes of London, it was not possible to compete with illegal builders (cash in hand, illegal employment, gross violations of H & S, gross violations of building standards).
Nothing was done - because, as he was told, it was policy to ignore it.
The answer is not to abolish standards. But as those Victorians (and Medievals , with the Guilds) understood, a regulation or a standard is worse than useless without… drum roll… *enforcement*
What you need is simple, clear standards. And teeth in enforcement.
Instead we have had a nearly exponential increase in paperwork. And reductions in enforcement.
Imagine a big site. The Big Builders have actually subcontracted the site to A, who have subcontracted down the alphabet to about Q. Who digs the ditches for the foundation six inches less than plan - quicker, cheaper (less concrete and rebar). This is (largely) because Q is being squeezed on price.
The Big Builders know. But they don’t know in the legal, provable sense.
The inspectors look at the foundations for one house. That’s done properly. The others have been filled with concrete before they got there. So sorry. Just sign here.
When it gets found out, Q has gone out of business (different Ltd for each job).
Aye, and not just them, new build I would not touch.
I posted a link to a YouTube snag site yesterday. People spend a fortune on tat.
What surprised me when we sold my wife’s old house was the lender only wanted a drive by survey. You’re lending money on something that costs a lot and can’t be arsed to check it, although her house was a 1 bed in Wallsend so not too pricey. The buyer had a proper survey inside the house.
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
How many should it take, though?
70k HMRC staff is 1 per a thousand people in the country. So that's about 2 staff-hours per head of population per year. And whilst most of us don't take up very much time, it doesn't seem crazy that the minority do.
Trouble with both "70000 staff" and "£11mn furniture contract" is that they lie in the "bike shed" range of Parkinson's Law of Meetings. Small enough that we think we understand them (even if we don't really) and big enough (though they aren't really) that we think it's worth having an opinion on them.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
They used wanton and furious driving in this case
Where a dozy woman was looking at her phone and walked out on the road and the guy was using a not road legal bike.
I had a little sympathy for the cyclist. She should be paying attention when crossing the road.
She should but the law works on extra caution the more dangerous the vehicle. So lorry drivers have to pay extra attention to drivers, drivers to cyclists and motorcycles and pedestrians and cyclists to pedestrians etc. Even if the pedestrian or cyclist or motorcyclist was slightly at fault the driver will normally get the blame or the cyclist if a pedestrian unless say a motorcycle was being driven massively over the speed limit
You can usually tell when someone will walk out in front of you - they will be walking towards the kerb while looking at their phone. At this point you can ring your bell or shout - but they often also have headphones on. You can brake or take evasive action - having first checked that this will not put you under the wheels of a bus. Sometimes they just step out in front of you with no warning, though.
They may do but you will still likely get the blame if that pedestrian is killed or injured and be prosecuted. A prosecutor would say you were still at least careless if not as a driver or cyclist being ready to brake or take evasive action at all times
I doubt any driver or cyclist would be prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian who walks out directly in front of them. There is a reaction time and a braking distance that you need to factor in. Cyclists in particular are always riding defensively, because if we hit a pedestrian we may well be injured as much as they are (from a weight point of view the bike itself is typically marginal: a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is just two people hitting each other).
They likely would. Certainly provided it could be shown they could have had enough breaking distance to stop
If there is sufficient braking (sic) distance I would not put that in the category of walking out directly in front of you.
Not just braking distance - also reaction distance. At 20mph it's about 6m, at 30mph it's 9m.
If a pedestrian literally steps out in front of you you've got no chance even at 10mph - that's why you should always take the middle of the lane whenever there are pedestrians about. I think I've saved myself a few nasty falls from doing so.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
They used wanton and furious driving in this case
Where a dozy woman was looking at her phone and walked out on the road and the guy was using a not road legal bike.
I had a little sympathy for the cyclist. She should be paying attention when crossing the road.
She should but the law works on extra caution the more dangerous the vehicle. So lorry drivers have to pay extra attention to drivers, drivers to cyclists and motorcycles and pedestrians and cyclists to pedestrians etc. Even if the pedestrian or cyclist or motorcyclist was slightly at fault the driver will normally get the blame or the cyclist if a pedestrian unless say a motorcycle was being driven massively over the speed limit
You can usually tell when someone will walk out in front of you - they will be walking towards the kerb while looking at their phone. At this point you can ring your bell or shout - but they often also have headphones on. You can brake or take evasive action - having first checked that this will not put you under the wheels of a bus. Sometimes they just step out in front of you with no warning, though.
They may do but you will still likely get the blame if that pedestrian is killed or injured and be prosecuted. A prosecutor would say you were still at least careless if not as a driver or cyclist being ready to brake or take evasive action at all times
I doubt any driver or cyclist would be prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian who walks out directly in front of them. There is a reaction time and a braking distance that you need to factor in. Cyclists in particular are always riding defensively, because if we hit a pedestrian we may well be injured as much as they are (from a weight point of view the bike itself is typically marginal: a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is just two people hitting each other).
They likely would. Certainly provided it could be shown they could have had enough breaking distance to stop
If there is sufficient braking (sic) distance I would not put that in the category of walking out directly in front of you.
As I showed though courts have found cyclists liable even if their brakes were fine and a pedestrian walked out in front of them
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government. We live in interesting times.
In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021
Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.
If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
It's a fucking disgrace. HMRC staff, indeed all civil servants, don't need office furniture or equipment. They should stand upright with clipboard and pen in hand, get on with their job, and stop whingeing.
Why not just get rid of HMRC completely? If we didn't have to employ tax collectors we probably wouldn't need to pay taxes anyway. Especially if we throw out all the immigrants who are costing us billions! Or maybe all the woke lefties could pay for the government out of their own pocket if they like it so much. Etc etc.
Do you work for Capita? After their stunning success with the RAF contract, I guess they are looking for new opportunities
If we're going to forensically analyse government contracts, it might b sensible to start with the big ticket items. An £11m contract is basically not even random noise.
I recall posting a few of the ones for testing during Covid; they were in the multiple billions at a time. No one took much if any interest
If you're the government trying to improve public sector productivity then these smaller scale projects are exactly what is necessary. The big bang approach of giving IBM and PWC £15bn doesn't work even though it might generate a few positive headlines about the government tackling waste etc...
It's a fucking disgrace. HMRC staff, indeed all civil servants, don't need office furniture or equipment. They should stand upright with clipboard and pen in hand, get on with their job, and stop whingeing.
Why not just get rid of HMRC completely? If we didn't have to employ tax collectors we probably wouldn't need to pay taxes anyway. Especially if we throw out all the immigrants who are costing us billions! Or maybe all the woke lefties could pay for the government out of their own pocket if they like it so much. Etc etc.
Do you work for Capita? After their stunning success with the RAF contract, I guess they are looking for new opportunities
I temped for them when (Maybe they still have it ?) they ran the TFL contract. I remember the congestion charge "going live" whilst I was there, which places my time there around start of the year 2003 - which fits...
And in any event, it's this sort of stuff which matters.
- £38 billion for a nuclear reactor - £49 billion for a runway - £2.5 billion for a tramway - £80 billion for a railway line - £15 billion to refurbish Parliament
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
How many should it take, though?
70k HMRC staff is 1 per a thousand people in the country. So that's about 2 staff-hours per head of population per year. And whilst most of us don't take up very much time, it doesn't seem crazy that the minority do.
Trouble with both "70000 staff" and "£11mn furniture contract" is that they lie in the "bike shed" range of Parkinson's Law of Meetings. Small enough that we think we understand them (even if we don't really) and big enough (though they aren't really) that we think it's worth having an opinion on them.
Over time they will be able to replace some roles, particularly call centre ones, with technology and AI, though AI for direct customer service is some time off because the last thing you want is some arrogant know-all LLM hallucinating tax rules and sharing them confidently with unsuspecting members of the public, even something as basic as “when is my payment due”.
Tax authorities around the world are digitising rapidly. Ours isn’t at the forefront - there is still ground to make up.
Another that isn’t at the forefront of digitisation is the IRS. They are, though, a good case study of how not to do civil service job cuts. DOGE arrived and took out swathes of front line officers. As a result not only do they have a huge and mounting processing backlog but they’ve also had to cut back enforcement activity significantly. I suppose you could say that’s good news for the (non)-taxpayer.
Because it has 60,000 staff and £160 a chair is good value?
Not just chairs but desks too. As the tweet makes clear.
It may well be about saving money.
If you have staff sitting at a desk x hours a day, then you have an obligation to provide furniture that protects the staff against bad back, RSI etc.
Plenty of companies have been sued and had to make large settlements for this.
One reason for the popularity of the Herman Miller Aeron chairs in offices, was that they provided a bulletproof protection against such claims - “We spent over a thousand per person on buying the most ergonomic chairs on the planet”. I was told, by an HR person, that buying them meant that the company insurance policy against such things was a fraction of what it otherwise would be.
So you get expensive chairs, monitor arms (easy adjustment) and the latest - the powered, adjustable height desks.
Yes, a typical office worker (public or private sector) spends a large portion of their life in their chair. Having a comfortable one is important and a good use of £££. It's no different to making sure our soldiers have proper boots.
If you give your soldiers crap boots though it provides them with an incentive to kill the enemy. I believe this approach has typically worked well for the Russians.
Kill the enemy and nick their boots? Ah yes ok. HMRC equivalent - tatty malfunctioning chairs make them so angry they take it out on all the evaders, hunt down every last one!
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
How many should it take, though?
70k HMRC staff is 1 per a thousand people in the country. So that's about 2 staff-hours per head of population per year. And whilst most of us don't take up very much time, it doesn't seem crazy that the minority do.
Trouble with both "70000 staff" and "£11mn furniture contract" is that they lie in the "bike shed" range of Parkinson's Law of Meetings. Small enough that we think we understand them (even if we don't really) and big enough (though they aren't really) that we think it's worth having an opinion on them.
Don't forget businesses too - I would guess that individual taxes only take up a small proportion of staff time?
FWIW HMRC have been really helpful with my property and overseas taxes. 5 minute wait on the phone and the adviser worked out my situation almost instantly. If I had a complaint, it's that their way of explaining it probably suits someone with no accountancy/finance background better than it did me - but that's understandable.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
Lib Dems have won more local byelections than any other party this year.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government. We live in interesting times.
In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021
Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.
If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I will be amazed if the four unionist parties can agree on enough to form a government, though. Independence isn’t the only issue. Currently it’s not even an important issue with the voters. Unless Reform try to abolish the Scottish parliament, all parties will currently be happy with continuing devolution, despite what they tell their supporters.
And in any event, it's this sort of stuff which matters.
- £38 billion for a nuclear reactor - £49 billion for a runway - £2.5 billion for a tramway - £80 billion for a railway line - £15 billion to refurbish Parliament
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government. We live in interesting times.
In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021
Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.
If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I will be amazed if the four unionist parties can agree on enough to form a government, though. Independence isn’t the only issue. Currently it’s not even an important issue with the voters. Unless Reform try to abolish the Scottish parliament, all parties will currently be happy with continuing devolution, despite what they tell their supporters.
Who cares about forming a government? The main thing for unionists is to completely neuter the SNP so they have to actually focus on governing Scotland and Scottish domestic policy rather then endlessly whinging about the need for indyref2! A unionist majority does that even if the SNP still win most seats
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
2 of 2
Example: An amendment that liability insurance should be compulsory. Do they not know that nearly all cyclists have this already for our whole households under our Contents Policies? The risks are so low that it comes free. Do they not read their own insurance policies?
Example: (From Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who was in Government roles from 2014 to 2024): Scooters and cycles regularly ride on pavements and, because of electrification, they can go at high speeds—up to 70 miles per hour, according to the Sunday Telegraph. The claim is a lie. It is not physically possible to cycle at these speeds. If 70mph on a pavement is possible (I doubt it) these are mopeds or motor-cycles. The Telegraph tried this on the front page recently as part of their culture war, and were disembowelled by the press regulator.
Example: Amendment 346B (Lord Hogan-Howe) to define anything not meeting the definition of "Pedal Cycle" (15 mph cap e-assist is the main aspect) as a "motor cycle". This has been in place in law since the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983. WTF? The issue is enforcement, not law, yet the Lord pisses away HoL time on stupidity-signalling.
We pay these people £361 per day. Why do they do no homework which means many of their proposals will add nothing, and why is this group generally so f*cking ignorant?
And in any event, it's this sort of stuff which matters.
- £38 billion for a nuclear reactor - £49 billion for a runway - £2.5 billion for a tramway - £80 billion for a railway line - £15 billion to refurbish Parliament
Reality is Parliament can't be modernised - we need to shift it elsewhere.
Now personally I've always said put it in Bradford just to see how quickly HS2 would then be built. But equally we could put it anywhere with decent ish rail connections..
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
Lib Dems have won more local byelections than any other party this year.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Economic literacy has never been part of the pro-EU argument. It is all vibes, and all inadequate craven people who desperately want the Swedes, the French and the Germans to like them. It's an emotional argument - it has never been a logical one.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
Lib Dems have won more local byelections than any other party this year.
And yet they've gone from the 3rd party of British politics to being the 5th...
Don't mistake votes promised to pollsters for votes actually cast in the ballot box. The Lib Dems have every reason to be cheerful.
You have to understand the Tories on here are used to being top dogs - the fact every seat projection puts them as the fifth party in the next Commons with perhaps 40 seats is something with which they're having a lot of trouble dealing.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
In principle I can see why in culpability terms simple dangerous or careless driving (and indeed cycling) should be equalised with sentences where serious injury occurs or even potentially death after dangerous or careless driving. In practical terms there aren’t the prison spaces for jailing more dangerous drivers who don’t kill or injure and careless drivers even if they seriously injure or sometimes even if they kill normally just get suspended sentences and community orders not immediate prison terms unless on drink or drugs anyway.
Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.
And in any event, it's this sort of stuff which matters.
- £38 billion for a nuclear reactor - £49 billion for a runway - £2.5 billion for a tramway - £80 billion for a railway line - £15 billion to refurbish Parliament
Reality is Parliament can't be modernised - we need to shift it elsewhere.
Now personally I've always said put it in Bradford just to see how quickly HS2 would then be built. But equally we could put it anywhere with decent ish rail connections..
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
I learned the other day that the Turkey customs arrangement has a flaw - Turkey must open its markets to any country the EU does a trade deal with (say, South Korea, Australia etc.) but there is no reverse obligation - and in fact many countries don't extend that to Turkey.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
Your methodology is good HYUFD, but I don't think tactical voting is going to be as big this time. Reform have scooped up lots of voters including some SNP, but more from Slab and Scon. As we get closer to polling, these guys won't be backing out. you're right, it's definitely white working class areas where the Labour vote is under severe pressure. The only reason the SNP look like retaining scores of constituency seats is due to the splintering of the unionist vote.
Labour should be worried about the list vote as most of their MSPs are elected there. The guy in Edinburgh Southern should be ok, maybe Jackie Baillie, East Lothian is a possible gain too. There's going to be a squeeze on the list vote in urban Scotland from Reform on the right and the Greens on the left, in rural areas there is a chance for the Lib Dems to come back - can they get their message out?
Elsewhere there could be some gains for other parties in rural Scotland. For the time being, I generally agree with the ballotbox Scotland analysis here
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Economic literacy has never been part of the pro-EU argument. It is all vibes, and all inadequate craven people who desperately want the Swedes, the French and the Germans to like them. It's an emotional argument - it has never been a logical one.
Brexit was economically illiterate, as are the great majority of your posts to be honest.
I voted Remain largely but not exclusively on economic grounds.
However a customs union so far as I can tell forfeits Britain’s trading policy completely, and that’s before getting into the Turkish issues mentioned upthread.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
They used wanton and furious driving in this case
Where a dozy woman was looking at her phone and walked out on the road and the guy was using a not road legal bike.
I had a little sympathy for the cyclist. She should be paying attention when crossing the road.
She should but the law works on extra caution the more dangerous the vehicle. So lorry drivers have to pay extra attention to drivers, drivers to cyclists and motorcycles and pedestrians and cyclists to pedestrians etc. Even if the pedestrian or cyclist or motorcyclist was slightly at fault the driver will normally get the blame or the cyclist if a pedestrian unless say a motorcycle was being driven massively over the speed limit
You can usually tell when someone will walk out in front of you - they will be walking towards the kerb while looking at their phone. At this point you can ring your bell or shout - but they often also have headphones on. You can brake or take evasive action - having first checked that this will not put you under the wheels of a bus. Sometimes they just step out in front of you with no warning, though.
They may do but you will still likely get the blame if that pedestrian is killed or injured and be prosecuted. A prosecutor would say you were still at least careless if not as a driver or cyclist being ready to brake or take evasive action at all times
I doubt any driver or cyclist would be prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian who walks out directly in front of them. There is a reaction time and a braking distance that you need to factor in. Cyclists in particular are always riding defensively, because if we hit a pedestrian we may well be injured as much as they are (from a weight point of view the bike itself is typically marginal: a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is just two people hitting each other).
They likely would. Certainly provided it could be shown they could have had enough breaking distance to stop
If there is sufficient braking (sic) distance I would not put that in the category of walking out directly in front of you.
As I showed though courts have found cyclists liable even if their brakes were fine and a pedestrian walked out in front of them
If he had time to blow his horn he probably had time to brake and take better evasive action, although it still sounds like it was a bad judgement to make him 50% liable when he was obeying the law and the pedestrian was looking at their phone. I really struggle to understand why people walk out into the road without looking. EVs are pretty quiet too, they are not just risking a run in with a cyclist. Some people seem to have a death wish.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
Er, HMRC have loads of offices and will sometimes need new furniture. You're not expecting people to work on the floor are you?
What a weird thing to complain about.
It’s not that some of them need new furniture, it’s that they’re spending £11m on one order for furniture. Surely they’re not buying a desk and chair for their whole staff all at the same time?
I wonder if there is some major merging of offices on new sites going on, after the merger.
Office furniture covers more than that. Stationery cupboards, filing cabinets, meeting room kit, coffee area, etc. etc. A better grade of security for the locks for HMRC. And delivery and assembly.
Half the time the right complain about the shite facilities* in the public sector, half the time they complain when the facilities are upgraded to basic commercial standard, ie all looking reasonably neat and professional and to modern H&S standards esp for screen work.
And the rest of the time (from their home computers) they demand civil servants all work in the office 5 days a week.
Look at the cost of office fit-outs in large private sector businesses. Facilities management procurement is largely the same process regardless of the buying organisation. I suspect the HMRC approach is rather more cheapskate than many of those.
£11 million doesn't seem expensive to me for 70,000 employees and £5 billion operating costs. I think people who haven't worked in large organisations don't have an understanding of how much money swills around.
That or PB’s “how hard can it be” contingent have discovered another string to their already impressive multi-talented bow: facilities procurement expertise.
When I was in the public sector I only had newish furniture for about 1987-92 (just happened to be in an office partly upgraded recently). Else it was all handmedowns with the exception of certain specialist lab furniture. None of it was even computer era, otherwise.
That was OK by me so long as the chair was OK, as I didn't see the point of spending money on new stuff unnecessarily.
But. My last office was improved only after I had left and after a major refurb and reorganization. I did get to use it - but when I came back as a consultant etc. with a hot desk in a cubicle. No way could you sort out that sort of open access with a mix of old desks of all sizes and shapes.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Economic literacy has never been part of the pro-EU argument. It is all vibes, and all inadequate craven people who desperately want the Swedes, the French and the Germans to like them. It's an emotional argument - it has never been a logical one.
the sites no 1 truss simp banging on about economic literacy
I agree that FOM is only as good as every state’s own immigration policies.
Perhaps that needs to be regularised, or safety-checks put in place. I think the political appetite for that has probably changed substantially since 2016.
And they wonder why their young white male sons have been voting for Trump, Farage and Reform, the AfD, Le Pen and RN, Brothers of Italy, One Nation in Australia etc
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
Lib Dems have won more local byelections than any other party this year.
And yet they've gone from the 3rd party of British politics to being the 5th...
Don't mistake votes promised to pollsters for votes actually cast in the ballot box. The Lib Dems have every reason to be cheerful.
Lol. The ramping of LD chances projected from tiny turnouts continue in spite of this happening for decades and their national vote being far better predicted by polling; and it is is continually hilarious.
Good article in the Times (free to read) by Paul Johnson about Britain’s plunging birth rate and the prospects of entering a time of population decline.
He makes the point that we as a species are very bad at anticipating reversals of trends. I’ve thought for a while that this would make for a very good book: a series of examples of trends that everyone thought would continue forever stopping and going into reverse. Inflation. Gold prices. Crime rates. World peace. TV watching. London population (twice). One of those I am looking out for in the coming decades is obesity.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
Your methodology is good HYUFD, but I don't think tactical voting is going to be as big this time. Reform have scooped up lots of voters including some SNP, but more from Slab and Scon. As we get closer to polling, these guys won't be backing out. you're right, it's definitely white working class areas where the Labour vote is under severe pressure. The only reason the SNP look like retaining scores of constituency seats is due to the splintering of the unionist vote.
Labour should be worried about the list vote as most of their MSPs are elected there. The guy in Edinburgh Southern should be ok, maybe Jackie Baillie, East Lothian is a possible gain too. There's going to be a squeeze on the list vote in urban Scotland from Reform on the right and the Greens on the left, in rural areas there is a chance for the Lib Dems to come back - can they get their message out?
Elsewhere there could be some gains for other parties in rural Scotland. For the time being, I generally agree with the ballotbox Scotland analysis here
You are still focusing on 2024 DocG and the last general election in Scotland where indeed more Labour voters have gone Reform than SNP voters have. Since the 2021 Holyrood election though more SNP voters have gone Reform than 2021 Scottish Labour voters have gone Reform, even though the Scottish Tories have lost most to Reform.
Some SNP voters have gone Green even on the constituency vote too not just for the list vote
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The benefits of customs union are pretty marginal unless there is meaningful single market membership (EEA) or quasi-membership (Switzerland).
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government. We live in interesting times.
In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021
Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.
If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I will be amazed if the four unionist parties can agree on enough to form a government, though. Independence isn’t the only issue. Currently it’s not even an important issue with the voters. Unless Reform try to abolish the Scottish parliament, all parties will currently be happy with continuing devolution, despite what they tell their supporters.
Who cares about forming a government? The main thing for unionists is to completely neuter the SNP so they have to actually focus on governing Scotland and Scottish domestic policy rather then endlessly whinging about the need for indyref2! A unionist majority does that even if the SNP still win most seats
Except another election will happen if no FM can be elected.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Economic literacy has never been part of the pro-EU argument. It is all vibes, and all inadequate craven people who desperately want the Swedes, the French and the Germans to like them. It's an emotional argument - it has never been a logical one.
Ah the old 'accuse the other side of your own foibles' technique. Not a bad effort either. But the gold standard purveyors probably remain Trump/Maga.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
Apologies, my original post missed the point that it was the U.S. which imposes higher tariffs on the EU.
The U.S. is Britain’s second largest trading partner after the EU.
I take your point on the friction imposed by rules of origin paperwork, but I still think that surrendering trade policy to another state indefensible politically and economically.
The problem with the single market of course is that while it works very well for “goods”, it doesn’t work so well for “services”.
This is a glaring example of EU hypocrisy.
I’d like to see some more analysis on this, though. How “bad” is single market integration for services, and how does it compare - for example - to the U.S.?
Good article in the Times (free to read) by Paul Johnson about Britain’s plunging birth rate and the prospects of entering a time of population decline.
He makes the point that we as a species are very bad at anticipating reversals of trends. I’ve thought for a while that this would make for a very good book: a series of examples of trends that everyone thought would continue forever stopping and going into reverse. Inflation. Gold prices. Crime rates. World peace. TV watching. London population (twice). One of those I am looking out for in the coming decades is obesity.
I was astonished to read that around 30% of pregnancies now end in abortion, which is a big increase.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The logic of CU was always "what's the closest we can get outside the Single Market?" Because SM=FOM and nobody wants to be the first to electrocute themselves on that particular rail, thank you.
Long story short, there are no good options from here, at best they are damage limitation, et cetera.
It's so left field I wonder what the long term agenda is for reform - actively building social housing?
The article is about Right to buy - which is different to Help to buy.
Yep I'm an idiot - but the fact that the Telegraph is saying right to buy (THE Thatcherite policy) was a bad idea with serious consequences is incredibly interesting.
Are we really saying that a council could not create a dwelling for less than £440,000. That's an endightment of current building costs, planning laws, council efficiency, and half a dozen other things before it's an endightment of Right to buy.
2 bedroom EPC A costs £237k in the East Midlands Land extra.
I don’t know where you get your prejudices from but planning ain’t much. Standards enforcement is important. ( I’m on top of costs, we are building a fair few council houses over the next few years. )
Say before the next election Starmer or some bolder replacement called a referendum to rejoin the EU and won. It will take some time to negotiate actually doing it with the EU.
What do Reform and the Tories run on in the next election? Ignore the referendum? Hold another one? Negotiate a better deal with the EU than Labour would?
Complain that having a referendum is a betrayal of the last referendum, and that Labour shouldn’t have called one without a manifesto commitment to do so.
The problem with the single market of course is that while it works very well for “goods”, it doesn’t work so well for “services”.
This is a glaring example of EU hypocrisy.
I’d like to see some more analysis on this, though. How “bad” is single market integration for services, and how does it compare - for example - to the U.S.?
The IMF reckons the internal effective tariff between EU states is 44% for goods and 110% for services. I suspect language differences play a big part...
The BYDs are crazy cheap over here. Japanese people are double-prejudiced against both China and EVs but apparently their plan is just to keep discounting until somebody buys one and tells their friends that electric cars are not in fact total shite, that's just the Japanese ones.
I got the AWD version of the Seal and various extras that their highly effective ex-Nissan salespeople sold my wife on (I got back from the loo after agreeing to buy it and they were halfway to selling her a large mechanical digger) and it was only a little over 5 million yen which is like 24,000 GBP. Then a month later they announced a bunch of even bigger discounts.
With the subsidies and various discounts you can get a Dolphin for about 2 million yen which is under 10,000 GBP. I heard some people who have solar are buying new BYD Dolphins to use as storage batteries. The normal batteries sold by Nichicon etc are over 1 million yen for like 8 kWh, and a Dolphin gives you 45 kWh, lasts longer, and as an added bonus you can drive it around.
What a fascinating modern age with live in.
Talking about the modern age. Russia developing rocket borne shrapnel weapons to take out Starlink.
Surely that risks not only Starlink, but all the other satellites in low Earth orbit. It could also potentially mean the end of human ambitions in space (including Musk's Mars plans).
Yes, it would be the space equivalent of a nuclear weapon.
Will their rockets work though, be big change.
Sigh.
Kessler Syndrome probably doesn’t work. It *provably* doesn’t work in very low Earth orbit.
The atmospheric drag at that altitude pulls anything not under active control out of orbit very fast. This is one of the reasons that SpaceX is asking the regulators (the FCC, usually) for permission to use lower and lower orbits.
The “barrel of ball bearings” ASAT idea has been around since before Gagarin. The problem with it is that a single barrel of ball bearings only covers a tiny volume, on one orbit. Which is why ASAT designers immediately move to more directed systems. Bit like the “engines on wingtips” thing that shows up in initial designs for supersonic aircraft in the 1950s.
Russia has a recent history of childish “super weapons” willy waving. Such as the Poseidon mega torpedo, the farcical nuclear powered cruise missile (managed to kill some Russian scientists) and their “hypersonic weapons” - short range ballistic missile strapped to an aircraft.
Note also that SpaceX is launching 86% of the world tonnage to orbit. Russia is launching less than 3%
As a strategy for causing destruction of space ambitions and/or SpaceX, I would say, it's far more than 'probably' not going to work, it's more like 'almost certainly'.
First: as you mention, atmospheric drag is enormous at SpaceX type orbits. SpaceX "lost" a satellite last week. But here's the thing; the orbits are so low that essentially everything will have burnt up in the atmosphere in the next week or two. The shrapnel from these nuclear explosions would rapidly deorbit.
Secondy: you need to get your shrapnel to spead out from wherever the rocket took it. Any attempt to disperse debris over meaningful orbital volumes requires enormous delta-v. Even nuclear detonations distribute fragments inefficiently and uncontrollably
And even if you had a nuclear explosion, it's really hard to 'focus' said nuclear explosion along the orbital plane. Half of all the energy (and shrapnel) is going to be send right back down towards earth, and another chunk is going to be headed out towards Jupiter.
Which brings us to by far the biggest issue.
Third: space is really big. You may think it's a long way to the chemist, but that's nothing compared to how big space is.
How is Russia -given the issues above- going to get a massive amount of shrapnel (and nuclear weapons to spread it around) into low earth orbit? I mean they might be able to launch a couple of rockets, detonate a couple of nuclear bombs with a little bit of shrapnel, that gets into the right orbit for a week or two.
That shrapnel might even take out a Starlink satellite. Or three.
But how can a couple of tonnes of shrapnel (and I'm being generous here) spread out across more than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of LEO before burning up on reentry.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The logic of CU was always "what's the closest we can get outside the Single Market?" Because SM=FOM and nobody wants to be the first to electrocute themselves on that particular rail, thank you.
Long story short, there are no good options from here, at best they are damage limitation, et cetera.
Unless a CU is not damage limitation, but worse. TBD...
Because it has 60,000 staff and £160 a chair is good value?
Not just chairs but desks too. As the tweet makes clear.
It may well be about saving money.
If you have staff sitting at a desk x hours a day, then you have an obligation to provide furniture that protects the staff against bad back, RSI etc.
Plenty of companies have been sued and had to make large settlements for this.
One reason for the popularity of the Herman Miller Aeron chairs in offices, was that they provided a bulletproof protection against such claims - “We spent over a thousand per person on buying the most ergonomic chairs on the planet”. I was told, by an HR person, that buying them meant that the company insurance policy against such things was a fraction of what it otherwise would be.
So you get expensive chairs, monitor arms (easy adjustment) and the latest - the powered, adjustable height desks.
Yes, a typical office worker (public or private sector) spends a large portion of their life in their chair. Having a comfortable one is important and a good use of £££. It's no different to making sure our soldiers have proper boots.
If you give your soldiers crap boots though it provides them with an incentive to kill the enemy. I believe this approach has typically worked well for the Russians.
Kill the enemy and nick their boots? Ah yes ok. HMRC equivalent - tatty malfunctioning chairs make them so angry they take it out on all the evaders, hunt down every last one!
Allow tax to be paid in furniture, and then HMRC employees will be incentivised to go after the companies with nice chairs and desks, and make sure they pay up.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
They used wanton and furious driving in this case
Where a dozy woman was looking at her phone and walked out on the road and the guy was using a not road legal bike.
I had a little sympathy for the cyclist. She should be paying attention when crossing the road.
She should but the law works on extra caution the more dangerous the vehicle. So lorry drivers have to pay extra attention to drivers, drivers to cyclists and motorcycles and pedestrians and cyclists to pedestrians etc. Even if the pedestrian or cyclist or motorcyclist was slightly at fault the driver will normally get the blame or the cyclist if a pedestrian unless say a motorcycle was being driven massively over the speed limit
You can usually tell when someone will walk out in front of you - they will be walking towards the kerb while looking at their phone. At this point you can ring your bell or shout - but they often also have headphones on. You can brake or take evasive action - having first checked that this will not put you under the wheels of a bus. Sometimes they just step out in front of you with no warning, though.
That only works if you're not sending a text message, checking PB, changing the music, or yelling at your kids.
And they wonder why their young white male sons have been voting for Trump, Farage and Reform, the AfD, Le Pen and RN, Brothers of Italy, One Nation in Australia etc
The article bemoans the fact that white men are no longer half of young writers in Hollywood (based on what source data I am not sure). But white men are only a quarter of the population for Americans in their twenties so why would we expect them to have half of these jobs? Feels like a load of mediocrities bemoaning the fact they can no longer expect preferential treatment. Sad!
LLangollen canal really blows its banks - serious potential emergency, could have flooded Whitchurch. Fortunately the fire service got it under control and nobody seems to be hurt.
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
From that I deduce, it is a two year contract, running through end 2027.
What is not clear is whether it is good value for money, terrible value for money, or something in between, because we don't know what's involved. We don't know what proportion of total furniture spending it is.
This works out as 5 pounds per civil service employee per year. Which seems low. If you think of any office, and all the furniture and fixtures, I'd say it's probably around 500 to 1,200 pounds per per employee.
That's desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.
If you assume a ten year life, then that's about 50 to 120 pounds per employee per year. I'd hope and expect that a civil service employee would be at the bottom end of that, especially with flexible working.
So, I come to the conclusion that -based on the evidence we have- that I have no idea if it's good value or terrible value.
Edit to add. I see this is HMRC, with 70,000 employees not the entire civil service. So my math is off. And we still don't know if this is all they will spend on furniture, or if it is related to a single project or building. So the basic point stands. We don't know.
Ok? It's an example of how one country's genorosity toward non-EU migrants can have unforseen immigration effects through FoM.
E.g;
"Of those who identified as Somali, 72.0% lived in social rented housing; this is over four times higher than the percentage of the England and Wales population (16.6%)."
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
In principle I can see why in culpability terms simple dangerous or careless driving (and indeed cycling) should be equalised with sentences where serious injury occurs or even potentially death after dangerous or careless driving. In practical terms there aren’t the prison spaces for jailing more dangerous drivers who don’t kill or injure and careless drivers even if they seriously injure or sometimes even if they kill normally just get suspended sentences and community orders not immediate prison terms unless on drink or drugs anyway.
Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.
I also agree we need more cycle lanes
Thank-you for the reply.
What I'm after from Mark Park is some insight on how to encourage the likes of Lord Hogan-Howe and Baroness Rolfe to improve the quality of their contributions, since at present it is mainly going round in culture war circles. There are linked questions around such as why we do not have universal British Standards required for Lithium Batteries, as we do for say Washing Machines, to deal with fire risks, and tighter control of delivery cycle businesses so that dangerous behaviour is disincentivised rather than encouraged by business models.
On dangerous and careless, there is a definitional problem that I think Government of either side has not even looked at yet which causes dangerous to be charged as careless as the former requires mens rea, and there is endless nitpicking case law.
I'm a big fan of longer term suspended sentences, as an incentive for long-term good behaviour. In the UK we suspend sentences for up to 2 years (3 years is proposed). In Ireland they can do it for a decade.
The differential enforcement problem I highlight is partly imo about Jury identification with a defendant (ie: "I have done that, so it is not guilty"). There was a case this month where a driver near Ipswich went round a blind bend on a narrow road and killed one cyclist in a line of four coming the other way, and was found innocent. The defence was effectively "There was a 1.1m gap, that was enough room for them to fit and the one who was killed was out of line, therefore it was their fault that they were killed". The Jury said "not guilty". Whilst the law is clear that you are required to be able to stop in the room you can see, and leave the cyclist their own width plus 1.5m. Imo that requires a speed round that bend of at most 10-15 mph not the 20-30mph claimed, and the motor vehicle should have stopped for the pass.
(He was actually charged with death by careless; the initial headline was wrong.)
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
Apologies, my original post missed the point that it was the U.S. which imposes higher tariffs on the EU.
The U.S. is Britain’s second largest trading partner after the EU.
I take your point on the friction imposed by rules of origin paperwork, but I still think that surrendering trade policy to another state indefensible politically and economically.
The biggest problem with CU in my view is the EU is unlikely to concede trading advantages to the UK when it got what it wanted out of the Brexiteers one sided "oven ready" deal. Also the benefits of a CU while real aren't that massive either, so it may not be worth pushing for politically.
Nevertheless a customs union is absolutely economically literate in the sense it would help the economy overall
The problem with the single market of course is that while it works very well for “goods”, it doesn’t work so well for “services”.
This is a glaring example of EU hypocrisy.
I’d like to see some more analysis on this, though. How “bad” is single market integration for services, and how does it compare - for example - to the U.S.?
Well services is for many cases language dependent. So you can't as easily integrate French and German services the same way you can throughout the US.
How on earth is Wes Streeting going to be able to hold his seat at the next election?
He won’t lose to the Tories or LibDems, given the seats current demographics. A spirited campaign by a Gaza-motivated independent ran him surprisingly close last year, but who is to say what salience that issue will have, in domestic politics, in three years’ time?
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
Lots of small British businesses refuse to sell to customers in the EU because of the customs paperwork and tariffs.
The key issue, as I understand it, is with country of origin rules. Suppose I want to buy some yarn from a dyer based in Edinburgh. The yarn they dye is from blue-faced Leicester sheep in Yorkshire, but the dye they use is imported. To export to the EU they have to provide paperwork proving the country of origin of the different inputs to the yarn, and a tariff will be charged for that proportion which is not British (i.e. the dye).
It's hugely complicated, and very bureaucratic, and too onerous for small businesses. So they don't sell. Or they tell EU customers that they have no idea what tariff will be charged by the customs authorities and the purchaser has to take the risk themselves (and then pay the additional admin charges). And then they stop doing that because of the large number of returns.
So, technically, there's a zero tariff trade deal for goods produced in Britain, from British components and raw materials, but in practice it is not that simple.
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
From that I deduce, it is a two year contract, running through end 2027.
What is not clear is whether it is good value for money, terrible value for money, or something in between, because we don't know what's involved. We don't know what proportion of total furniture spending it is.
This works out as 5 pounds per civil service employee per year. Which seems low. If you think of any office, and all the furniture and fixtures, I'd say it's probably around 500 to 1,200 pounds per per employee.
That's desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.
If you assume a ten year life, then that's about 50 to 120 pounds per employee per year. I'd hope and expect that a civil service employee would be at the bottom end of that, especially with flexible working.
So, I come to the conclusion that -based on the evidence we have- that I have no idea if it's good value or terrible value.
Edit to add. I see this is HMRC, with 70,000 employees not the entire civil service. So my math is off. And we still don't know if this is all they will spend on furniture, or if it is related to a single project or building. So the basic point stands. We don't know.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
Your methodology is good HYUFD, but I don't think tactical voting is going to be as big this time. Reform have scooped up lots of voters including some SNP, but more from Slab and Scon. As we get closer to polling, these guys won't be backing out. you're right, it's definitely white working class areas where the Labour vote is under severe pressure. The only reason the SNP look like retaining scores of constituency seats is due to the splintering of the unionist vote.
Labour should be worried about the list vote as most of their MSPs are elected there. The guy in Edinburgh Southern should be ok, maybe Jackie Baillie, East Lothian is a possible gain too. There's going to be a squeeze on the list vote in urban Scotland from Reform on the right and the Greens on the left, in rural areas there is a chance for the Lib Dems to come back - can they get their message out?
Elsewhere there could be some gains for other parties in rural Scotland. For the time being, I generally agree with the ballotbox Scotland analysis here
You are still focusing on 2024 DocG and the last general election in Scotland where indeed more Labour voters have gone Reform than SNP voters have. Since the 2021 Holyrood election though more SNP voters have gone Reform than 2021 Scottish Labour voters have gone Reform, even though the Scottish Tories have lost most to Reform.
Some SNP voters have gone Green even on the constituency vote too not just for the list vote
I think what will do for a Labour comeback is the squeeze their vote is getting from other parties, the list is going to be way more competitive this time.
A lot of independence minded voters are now voting Green, and they won't have won many (if any) constituencies, so expect the Greens to be picking up 2 MSPs in a lot of areas. Ditto Reform, and where Labour previously got 3 or 4 list MSPs in regions, there will now be an almighty fight to get the 5th, 6th and 7th list MSPs.
You are right, the Labour vote of around 18% on the list is static from 2021, but I don't think the results will fall as kindly, if this polling continues. I can't see them getting 4 MSPs in Glasgow, for example, if the Greens are polling as strong, *unless* (big caveat) the Greens start winning constituencies.
The forecast on ballotbox page has Lab losing 3 seats on 2021, list MSPs in each of South, West and North East Scotland. I'm in South Scotland and would struggle to disagree with that, they are not polling as well outside the central belt
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Yes. It's an interesting question who he is addressing and why. The informed thoughtful - among whom I would expect he has a good deal of support - will all know this is meaningless twaddle. I can't imagine the left will find it impressive. His Islamist voters won't come flocking to the customs banner.
I can't work out who he is talking to. Especially as it flies 100% against a manifesto commitment.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
LLangollen canal really blows its banks - serious potential emergency, could have flooded Whitchurch. Fortunately the fire service got it under control and nobody seems to be hurt.
Have the Canals and Rivers Trust improved their safety game any since the Toddbrook reservoir incident in 2019, or are they still a serious accident waiting to happen? I guess this incident might suggest ongoing issues
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
From that I deduce, it is a two year contract, running through end 2027.
What is not clear is whether it is good value for money, terrible value for money, or something in between, because we don't know what's involved. We don't know what proportion of total furniture spending it is.
This works out as 5 pounds per civil service employee per year. Which seems low. If you think of any office, and all the furniture and fixtures, I'd say it's probably around 500 to 1,200 pounds per per employee.
That's desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.
If you assume a ten year life, then that's about 50 to 120 pounds per employee per year. I'd hope and expect that a civil service employee would be at the bottom end of that, especially with flexible working.
So, I come to the conclusion that -based on the evidence we have- that I have no idea if it's good value or terrible value.
Edit to add. I see this is HMRC, with 70,000 employees not the entire civil service. So my math is off. And we still don't know if this is all they will spend on furniture, or if it is related to a single project or building. So the basic point stands. We don't know.
Math !!!!
You'll have to forgive him. He has spent far too many years amongst the uneducated colonists.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
They used wanton and furious driving in this case
Where a dozy woman was looking at her phone and walked out on the road and the guy was using a not road legal bike.
I had a little sympathy for the cyclist. She should be paying attention when crossing the road.
She should but the law works on extra caution the more dangerous the vehicle. So lorry drivers have to pay extra attention to drivers, drivers to cyclists and motorcycles and pedestrians and cyclists to pedestrians etc. Even if the pedestrian or cyclist or motorcyclist was slightly at fault the driver will normally get the blame or the cyclist if a pedestrian unless say a motorcycle was being driven massively over the speed limit
You can usually tell when someone will walk out in front of you - they will be walking towards the kerb while looking at their phone. At this point you can ring your bell or shout - but they often also have headphones on. You can brake or take evasive action - having first checked that this will not put you under the wheels of a bus. Sometimes they just step out in front of you with no warning, though.
They may do but you will still likely get the blame if that pedestrian is killed or injured and be prosecuted. A prosecutor would say you were still at least careless if not as a driver or cyclist being ready to brake or take evasive action at all times
I doubt any driver or cyclist would be prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian who walks out directly in front of them. There is a reaction time and a braking distance that you need to factor in. Cyclists in particular are always riding defensively, because if we hit a pedestrian we may well be injured as much as they are (from a weight point of view the bike itself is typically marginal: a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is just two people hitting each other).
They likely would. Certainly provided it could be shown they could have had enough breaking distance to stop
If there is sufficient braking (sic) distance I would not put that in the category of walking out directly in front of you.
As I showed though courts have found cyclists liable even if their brakes were fine and a pedestrian walked out in front of them
If he had time to blow his horn he probably had time to brake and take better evasive action, although it still sounds like it was a bad judgement to make him 50% liable when he was obeying the law and the pedestrian was looking at their phone. I really struggle to understand why people walk out into the road without looking. EVs are pretty quiet too, they are not just risking a run in with a cyclist. Some people seem to have a death wish.
It's worth noting that that is a civil action not a criminal one.
Comments
Aye, and not just them, new build I would not touch.
I posted a link to a YouTube snag site yesterday. People spend a fortune on tat.
What surprised me when we sold my wife’s old house was the lender only wanted a drive by survey. You’re lending money on something that costs a lot and can’t be arsed to check it, although her house was a 1 bed in Wallsend so not too pricey. The buyer had a proper survey inside the house.
70k HMRC staff is 1 per a thousand people in the country. So that's about 2 staff-hours per head of population per year. And whilst most of us don't take up very much time, it doesn't seem crazy that the minority do.
Trouble with both "70000 staff" and "£11mn furniture contract" is that they lie in the "bike shed" range of Parkinson's Law of Meetings. Small enough that we think we understand them (even if we don't really) and big enough (though they aren't really) that we think it's worth having an opinion on them.
If a pedestrian literally steps out in front of you you've got no chance even at 10mph - that's why you should always take the middle of the lane whenever there are pedestrians about. I think I've saved myself a few nasty falls from doing so.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-cyclist-crash-robert-hazeldean-gemma-brushett-london-phone-court-a8972326.html
An £11m contract is basically not even random noise.
I recall posting a few of the ones for testing during Covid; they were in the multiple billions at a time.
No one took much if any interest
https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/2002784804044202482
Bit of a weird office culture tbh !
- £38 billion for a nuclear reactor
- £49 billion for a runway
- £2.5 billion for a tramway
- £80 billion for a railway line
- £15 billion to refurbish Parliament
We will never have a functioning country until we stop accepting these obscene infrastructure costs.
https://x.com/s8mb/status/2002435143781462409
Tax authorities around the world are digitising rapidly. Ours isn’t at the forefront - there is still ground to make up.
Another that isn’t at the forefront of digitisation is the IRS. They are, though, a good case study of how not to do civil service job cuts. DOGE arrived and took out swathes of front line officers. As a result not only do they have a huge and mounting processing backlog but they’ve also had to cut back enforcement activity significantly. I suppose you could say that’s good news for the (non)-taxpayer.
FWIW HMRC have been really helpful with my property and overseas taxes. 5 minute wait on the phone and the adviser worked out my situation almost instantly. If I had a complaint, it's that their way of explaining it probably suits someone with no accountancy/finance background better than it did me - but that's understandable.
https://x.com/Markos_mom/status/2002436647816712298
"Sean Thomas
The economic purge of the young white male
How the Boomers sacrificed their sons to save themselves" (£)
https://spectator.com/article/the-economic-purge-of-the-young-white-male
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
Example: An amendment that liability insurance should be compulsory. Do they not know that nearly all cyclists have this already for our whole households under our Contents Policies? The risks are so low that it comes free. Do they not read their own insurance policies?
Example: (From Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who was in Government roles from 2014 to 2024):
Scooters and cycles regularly ride on pavements and, because of electrification, they can go at high speeds—up to 70 miles per hour, according to the Sunday Telegraph.
The claim is a lie. It is not physically possible to cycle at these speeds. If 70mph on a pavement is possible (I doubt it) these are mopeds or motor-cycles. The Telegraph tried this on the front page recently as part of their culture war, and were disembowelled by the press regulator.
Example: Amendment 346B (Lord Hogan-Howe) to define anything not meeting the definition of "Pedal Cycle" (15 mph cap e-assist is the main aspect) as a "motor cycle". This has been in place in law since the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983. WTF? The issue is enforcement, not law, yet the Lord pisses away HoL time on stupidity-signalling.
We pay these people £361 per day. Why do they do no homework which means many of their proposals will add nothing, and why is this group generally so f*cking ignorant?
* Link to Baroness Neville-Rolfe's speech, for example:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-12-15/debates/A4908201-F63D-41B6-982D-D9CD4E4715C5/details#contribution-3820187F-A964-4B51-B7C4-3E96C4B063F5
A customs union is economically illiterate.
Now personally I've always said put it in Bradford just to see how quickly HS2 would then be built. But equally we could put it anywhere with decent ish rail connections..
.
.
Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.
I also agree we need more cycle lanes
Britain’s migration issues appear to be with Syrians, Afghans, and the like - not with Poles and Spaniards.
Even Albanians, for example, aren’t strictly EU citizens and Freedom of Movement need not be extended to them.
"Studies show that between one third and a half of the entire Dutch Somali community has moved to the UK."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/28/british-dream-europe-african-citizens
Labour should be worried about the list vote as most of their MSPs are elected there. The guy in Edinburgh Southern should be ok, maybe Jackie Baillie, East Lothian is a possible gain too. There's going to be a squeeze on the list vote in urban Scotland from Reform on the right and the Greens on the left, in rural areas there is a chance for the Lib Dems to come back - can they get their message out?
Elsewhere there could be some gains for other parties in rural Scotland. For the time being, I generally agree with the ballotbox Scotland analysis here
https://ballotbox.scot/ipsos-december-2025/
Russian port in Krasnodar Krai is on fire. 2 ships are said to be on fire
“🔥 Port of Taman, Volna, Krasnodar Krai, Russian Federation
Location of impact: 45°07'45"N 36°40'59"E
POV: 45°08'22"N 36°41'14"E”
https://bsky.app/profile/the-hedgehog.bsky.social/post/3mald4ahank2t
#explodey
https://www.tiranatimes.com/more-than-213000-albanians-gained-eu-citizenship-in-past-five-years-eu-data-shows/
I voted Remain largely but not exclusively on economic grounds.
However a customs union so far as I can tell forfeits Britain’s trading policy completely, and that’s before getting into the Turkish issues mentioned upthread.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
That was OK by me so long as the chair was OK, as I didn't see the point of spending money on new stuff unnecessarily.
But. My last office was improved only after I had left and after a major refurb and reorganization. I did get to use it - but when I came back as a consultant etc. with a hot desk in a cubicle. No way could you sort out that sort of open access with a mix of old desks of all sizes and shapes.
Perhaps that needs to be regularised, or safety-checks put in place. I think the political appetite for that has probably changed substantially since 2016.
Though I really do hope we don't get "desk user" as a coded dog-whistle to replace [edit] "lanyard wearer".
https://www.thetimes.com/article/332c9fd5-b1b7-4342-af00-740091cb4883?shareToken=910d42c2408c223a7d3a2d020b156dd2
He makes the point that we as a species are very bad at anticipating reversals of trends. I’ve thought for a while that this would make for a very good book: a series of examples of trends that everyone thought would continue forever stopping and going into reverse. Inflation. Gold prices. Crime rates. World peace. TV watching. London population (twice). One of those I am looking out for in the coming decades is obesity.
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
Some SNP voters have gone Green even on the constituency vote too not just for the list vote
The U.S. is Britain’s second largest trading partner after the EU.
I take your point on the friction imposed by rules of origin paperwork, but I still think that surrendering trade policy to another state indefensible politically and economically.
This is a glaring example of EU hypocrisy.
I’d like to see some more analysis on this, though.
How “bad” is single market integration for services, and how does it compare - for example - to the U.S.?
https://news.sky.com/story/abortion-rate-hits-record-high-figures-show-13394600
Long story short, there are no good options from here, at best they are damage limitation, et cetera.
Land extra.
I don’t know where you get your prejudices from but planning ain’t much. Standards enforcement is important. ( I’m on top of costs, we are building a fair few council houses over the next few years. )
https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/001/2025/040/001.2025.issue-040-en.pdf
(Page 11)
I suspect the US is generally better, but worse for some things - e.g needing 50 licenses to offer insurance in 50 states...
First: as you mention, atmospheric drag is enormous at SpaceX type orbits. SpaceX "lost" a satellite last week. But here's the thing; the orbits are so low that essentially everything will have burnt up in the atmosphere in the next week or two. The shrapnel from these nuclear explosions would rapidly deorbit.
Secondy: you need to get your shrapnel to spead out from wherever the rocket took it. Any attempt to disperse debris over meaningful orbital volumes requires enormous delta-v. Even nuclear detonations distribute fragments inefficiently and uncontrollably
And even if you had a nuclear explosion, it's really hard to 'focus' said nuclear explosion along the orbital plane. Half of all the energy (and shrapnel) is going to be send right back down towards earth, and another chunk is going to be headed out towards Jupiter.
Which brings us to by far the biggest issue.
Third: space is really big. You may think it's a long way to the chemist, but that's nothing compared to how big space is.
How is Russia -given the issues above- going to get a massive amount of shrapnel (and nuclear weapons to spread it around) into low earth orbit? I mean they might be able to launch a couple of rockets, detonate a couple of nuclear bombs with a little bit of shrapnel, that gets into the right orbit for a week or two.
That shrapnel might even take out a Starlink satellite. Or three.
But how can a couple of tonnes of shrapnel (and I'm being generous here) spread out across more than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of LEO before burning up on reentry.
It's completely implausible.
Feels like a load of mediocrities bemoaning the fact they can no longer expect preferential treatment. Sad!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/22/patches-of-the-moon-to-become-spacecraft-graveyards-say-researchers
LLangollen canal really blows its banks - serious potential emergency, could have flooded Whitchurch. Fortunately the fire service got it under control and nobody seems to be hurt.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/22/people-rescued-boats-sinkhole-shropshire-canal
What is not clear is whether it is good value for money, terrible value for money, or something in between, because we don't know what's involved. We don't know what proportion of total furniture spending it is.
This works out as 5 pounds per civil service employee per year. Which seems low. If you think of any office, and all the furniture and fixtures, I'd say it's probably around 500 to 1,200 pounds per per employee.
That's desks, chairs, tables, cabinets, etc.
If you assume a ten year life, then that's about 50 to 120 pounds per employee per year. I'd hope and expect that a civil service employee would be at the bottom end of that, especially with flexible working.
So, I come to the conclusion that -based on the evidence we have- that I have no idea if it's good value or terrible value.
Edit to add. I see this is HMRC, with 70,000 employees not the entire civil service. So my math is off. And we still don't know if this is all they will spend on furniture, or if it is related to a single project or building. So the basic point stands. We don't know.
E.g;
"Of those who identified as Somali, 72.0% lived in social rented housing; this is over four times higher than the percentage of the England and Wales population (16.6%)."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/somalipopulationsenglandandwales/census2021
Imagine if, say, 30% of Merkel's millions chose to move to the UK after getting German citizenship had we not left the EU...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzguWbqobNI (14 mins)
What I'm after from Mark Park is some insight on how to encourage the likes of Lord Hogan-Howe and Baroness Rolfe to improve the quality of their contributions, since at present it is mainly going round in culture war circles. There are linked questions around such as why we do not have universal British Standards required for Lithium Batteries, as we do for say Washing Machines, to deal with fire risks, and tighter control of delivery cycle businesses so that dangerous behaviour is disincentivised rather than encouraged by business models.
On dangerous and careless, there is a definitional problem that I think Government of either side has not even looked at yet which causes dangerous to be charged as careless as the former requires mens rea, and there is endless nitpicking case law.
I'm a big fan of longer term suspended sentences, as an incentive for long-term good behaviour. In the UK we suspend sentences for up to 2 years (3 years is proposed). In Ireland they can do it for a decade.
The differential enforcement problem I highlight is partly imo about Jury identification with a defendant (ie: "I have done that, so it is not guilty"). There was a case this month where a driver near Ipswich went round a blind bend on a narrow road and killed one cyclist in a line of four coming the other way, and was found innocent. The defence was effectively "There was a 1.1m gap, that was enough room for them to fit and the one who was killed was out of line, therefore it was their fault that they were killed". The Jury said "not guilty". Whilst the law is clear that you are required to be able to stop in the room you can see, and leave the cyclist their own width plus 1.5m. Imo that requires a speed round that bend of at most 10-15 mph not the 20-30mph claimed, and the motor vehicle should have stopped for the pass.
(He was actually charged with death by careless; the initial headline was wrong.)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15357139/Accountancy-hit-cyclist-car-country-road-late-childrens-nanny-cleared-death-dangerous-driving.html
Nevertheless a customs union is absolutely economically literate in the sense it would help the economy overall
The key issue, as I understand it, is with country of origin rules. Suppose I want to buy some yarn from a dyer based in Edinburgh. The yarn they dye is from blue-faced Leicester sheep in Yorkshire, but the dye they use is imported. To export to the EU they have to provide paperwork proving the country of origin of the different inputs to the yarn, and a tariff will be charged for that proportion which is not British (i.e. the dye).
It's hugely complicated, and very bureaucratic, and too onerous for small businesses. So they don't sell. Or they tell EU customers that they have no idea what tariff will be charged by the customs authorities and the purchaser has to take the risk themselves (and then pay the additional admin charges). And then they stop doing that because of the large number of returns.
So, technically, there's a zero tariff trade deal for goods produced in Britain, from British components and raw materials, but in practice it is not that simple.
A lot of independence minded voters are now voting Green, and they won't have won many (if any) constituencies, so expect the Greens to be picking up 2 MSPs in a lot of areas. Ditto Reform, and where Labour previously got 3 or 4 list MSPs in regions, there will now be an almighty fight to get the 5th, 6th and 7th list MSPs.
You are right, the Labour vote of around 18% on the list is static from 2021, but I don't think the results will fall as kindly, if this polling continues. I can't see them getting 4 MSPs in Glasgow, for example, if the Greens are polling as strong, *unless* (big caveat) the Greens start winning constituencies.
The forecast on ballotbox page has Lab losing 3 seats on 2021, list MSPs in each of South, West and North East Scotland. I'm in South Scotland and would struggle to disagree with that, they are not polling as well outside the central belt
I can't work out who he is talking to. Especially as it flies 100% against a manifesto commitment.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.