Trump chooses KEVIN WARSH for Fed chair. Trump considered Warsh in 2017 but chose Jerome Powell instead. The president announced his decision on Truth Social.
Since leaving the Fed nearly 15 years ago, Mr. Warsh, who currently works with billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller and is also a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has emerged as a staunch critic of the central bank.
NY Times live blog
Does his appointment have to get ratified by Congress? If so, he's rather shot himslef in the foot....
I've not heard of David Runciman until I came across this account of his thinking (by James Marriott), but his defence of democracy seems plausible. I like the example of WW1 France. Perhaps there's hope after all?
"Runciman’s thesis, roughly, is that any given week in a democracy looks like a clown show of dithering, delay, u-turns, squabbling and complacency. But from the longer perspective the chaos is effective — a symptom of democracy’s capacity to criticise itself, to change tack, to spread its bets widely, keep its options open and correct its failures.
"Democracies can just keep hitting “reset” in a way autocracies generally can’t. It looks like chaos (e.g. the last ten years of UK politics) in the short term. In the long term it’s often a kind of genius:
"In 1917, the penultimate year of the First World War, France got through four prime ministers. This looked unforgivably amateurish — especially when compared with the authority of Germany's “silent master” General Ludendorff. But after a series of duds France eventually landed on Georges Clémenceau, “Le Tigre” and the saviour of his country. Germany had no alternative to Ludendorff who would soon bring his nation to its knees.
"Liz Truss was bad. But just imagine if she was our dictator for life."
I take your point but what really saved France in 1917 (and 1918) was the British and Commonwealth armies, and the promise of the US troops coming in large numbers. France was nearly out of the war after the Nivelle Offensive, with huge mutinies among the troops.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
It's a bit silly criticising Brown, who instituted this sale many years ago. It would make more sense to criticise more recent actions: the Sunak government, for example, could have chosen to buy gold.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
It's a bit silly criticising Brown, who instituted this sale many years ago. It would make more sense to criticise more recent actions: the Sunak government, for example, could have chosen to buy gold.
So SEND teaching - check Taxis due to delays in local provisioning of specialist school places - check Central Government stopping Public sector projects delayed for no real reason - check Stupid cost saving attempts - check
Big win for the Scottish Lib Dems in the East Dumbarton Council by-election yesterday. SNP second, then Reform and Labour, then Green, Tory and a very minor party.
Apparently the East Dunbartonshire by-election was a disaster for the Scottish Tories who were looking to defend the seat but crashed into sixth place. There were mitigating circumstances as the man who was being replaced was jailed for romance fraud last year and was forced out.
It was real bad. I suppose another mitigating circumstance is that the ward is in a LibDem Westminster seat (was Jo Swinson's) which they are hoping to take in May for Holyrood. They will have been all over it. But it does show the vulnerability of the Tories in high status/high income areas to the LibDems. This is probably as close to Surrey as you get in Scotland.
Yes, I stayed there, just off the West Highland Way, last spring. It’s a pleasant, scenic area to the south of Loch Lomond and looked fairly prosperous to me. Yet within easy driving distance of Glasgow
The first count first preferences were
Labour and Co-operative Party. 650 Scottish Conservative and Unionist. 283 ReformUK 709 Scottish National Party (SNP). 789 Scottish Liberal Democrats. 1,744 Scottish Family Party. 35 Scottish Greens. 371
Which does suggest a fairly heavily blotted copybook for the Tories,
"An immigration enforcement officer was an illegal migrant who stole money from small boat migrants, a court has heard.
Besmir Matera, from Albania, has been charged, with four other immigration officers, with conspiracy to steal following a Home Office investigation.
They are alleged to have stolen money from migrants when they arrived in the UK after being rescued from dinghies in the Channel between 2021 and 2022.
Mr Matera, 36, is also charged with entering the UK illegally between July 2003 and March 2004 by giving a false name, date of birth and nationality in an asylum application.
He is also charged with possessing false passports between 2011 and 2022 and a false driving licence between 2018 and 2022."
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
I've not heard of David Runciman until I came across this account of his thinking (by James Marriott), but his defence of democracy seems plausible. I like the example of WW1 France. Perhaps there's hope after all?
"Runciman’s thesis, roughly, is that any given week in a democracy looks like a clown show of dithering, delay, u-turns, squabbling and complacency. But from the longer perspective the chaos is effective — a symptom of democracy’s capacity to criticise itself, to change tack, to spread its bets widely, keep its options open and correct its failures.
"Democracies can just keep hitting “reset” in a way autocracies generally can’t. It looks like chaos (e.g. the last ten years of UK politics) in the short term. In the long term it’s often a kind of genius:
"In 1917, the penultimate year of the First World War, France got through four prime ministers. This looked unforgivably amateurish — especially when compared with the authority of Germany's “silent master” General Ludendorff. But after a series of duds France eventually landed on Georges Clémenceau, “Le Tigre” and the saviour of his country. Germany had no alternative to Ludendorff who would soon bring his nation to its knees.
"Liz Truss was bad. But just imagine if she was our dictator for life."
Yes. I would add to that that democracy is clumsy and limited. But all the other ways that autocrats vainly point to in attempts to show that they know what it is that people want (apart from those that don't even pretend to care) lack that special element of ever actually asking them.
Burner phones and ‘safe’ charging cables. Nothing to see here.
Starmer, and the British Establishment generally, still believe in international order and free trade as taught in GCSE economics and PPE 101. We got ripped off by the Americans and we will get ripped off by the Chinese. Heck, we even got ripped off by the French. They think China will play by the rules because they think everyone plays by the rules.
And in doing so they'll piss off the Americans because they want to piss off Trump but have not thought about what happens after Trump pisses off when his term ends in three years or less. They've forgotten about not burning your bridges on the way out.
Prediction: Trump won’t piss off when his term ends; if it ends.
I'm of the opinion Trump won't survive his term, but if he gets to November 2028, he'll be re-elected to critical acclaim with 99% of the vote.
I think the key point in this excellent header is that the public don't understand why they are being asked to pay more and more for less and less. So, why is that?
I don't think that there is any doubt that local authorities are top heavy in terms of management and have bureaucratic structures that generate endless paperwork and pointless meetings. Most large organisations are the same. My niece applied for a lowered pavement outside her house so that she could park in her driveway. Initially, she was told that this did not require a building warrant, then that it did, then that a neighbour had objected for some obscure reason, then someone had to come and see it.... More than a year after this very simple application was made she is still waiting on a final decision. Hours have been spent on....what? It's pathetic and, writ large, a major source of delay in development in the UK.
But, having said all of that, the reality is that local authorities are not in control of their finances. What services they can provide are very dependent upon their block grants and it is an easy thing for Westminster (or Holyrood) politicans to cut because they don't get the blame for it. In addition their local tax raising powers have been severely restricted to keep inflation down and to win votes.
For me, local authorities need more power within their areas of responsibility. The regulatory systems they have to work within in care, children's services and education are all hopelessly complicated and prevent a more sensible prioritisation or even a political choice. Westminster (and Holyrood) need to back off in a large way. Yeah, right.
No expert, but I suspect the only way to punch through all this is via directly-elected mayors who have the profile to be judged on their record, separate from their party affiliation.
If successful, they can withstand the ups and downs of their parties - examples being Andy Burnham who obviously runs far ahead of Labour in Greater Manchester, and Ben Houchen who seems to be extraordinarily popular in Teesside for a Tory.
So then you get local elections which are actually about local issues. At the moment, local councillors must wonder what the point is if, despite doing a good job, they get voted out because their party happens to be unpopular at the time of the election.
I don't live under a directly elected mayor, so here is a question to which I don't know the answer: To what extent is the directly elected mayor directly responsible for raising, by taxes of any sort, the money he or she will direct to be spent?
They’ll set and get a precept off the council tax and have access to some other sources of funding directly. Whether they will get anything direct from central government remains to be seen - the new ones are being created with a promise of devolution of power and funding
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
There are two different factors at work here - why these local elections have been postponed as against the policy of unitary authorities (it's called unitarisation but that's a horrible word).
The reason the process is taking so long is because of the timescale of statutory consultation and then the time for the Government to decide which of the options for local Government re-organisation presented is the one they prefer (why it has to be down to the Government I don't know, a local referendum would be better).
Surrey had its consultation last summer (ended in August I believe) but that was on two clear options - one for two Councils (West and East) and one for three (likely West, North and East). The Government then took three months to reach a definitive conclusion - this was mainly due to the complete clear out of the DCLOG Ministerial team in the wake of the departure of Angela Rayner.
Even with a final decision, there remains an Order which has to be laid before Parliament before the process can officially begin and that includes the elections for Shadow Authorities in May this year and the eventual dissolution of the existing County and Borough/District Councils in March 2027 by which time some of the County Councillors elected in 2021 will have served nearly six years of a four year term.
The process in other councils (Norfolk, Suffolk and East & West Sussex) has been incredibly slow with consultations still going on - it beggars belief it has taken so long and that's what we should be getting annoyed about. A second postponement of elections means Shadow elections in May 2027 and the dissolution of existing authorities in March 2028 meaning Councillors elected in 2021 will serve nearly seven years of a four year term.
With hindsight, the 2025 County elections in those authorities could and should have taken place and that is the problem.
There'sa wider debate about the role and scope of local councils and local Government but that's not why the elections this year have been cancelled - it's the process and for once you can blame Labour for that (though there were, as I recall, similar delays during the Conservative administrations). It's different when you look at places like Cornwall where the County simply swallowed up the Districts and Boroughs - the current model is creating new Councils and that creates legal and HR challenges.
“With hindsight” or clear lessons to be learned and saved as government record, to infirm the next upheaval in Local Government?
If I am understanding you correctly, you advocate speeding the process up by scrapping the lengthly consultation process? And if it’s going to be a lengthy process, don’t cancel elections? Know as foresight not hindsight how long the process realistically will take>.
I would counter, if you definitely know you are into last year, it’s performative and wasteful to hold elections for something abolished in 12 months, councillors abolished in 12 months. Instead bring in change managers as consultants to manage the change on time.
I’m not convinced a referendum would speed things up, or be strongly democratic way of deciding it. The only correct decision is to scrap having two councils at same time, and we elect councillors and governments to ensure the right decisions and strong government happen. When you put it out in a referendum the answer you get can be a lottery between the right way to proceeded and the wrong one. To argue for referendum on this, is at same time to trash the strong intellectual arguments for representative democracy as being stronger than “referendum democracy.” You can spot the mindless left and right wing Populists on PB, when they say give us a referendum on this. And no surprise the fact is Reform and Adolf Hitler both favour “referendum democracy” over representative democracy.
Note that many authorities will be electing councillors for one year terms this year: the third placed winners in Metropolitan all ups that usually elect in thirds will serve but a single year, then be up for re-election in the 2027 cycle.
Yes. In my header I believe it to be 34 councils doing this - and the Opinion in my “opinion piece” it’s a waste of time and money, that in everybody’s interest is better diverted to making the change happen well and ASAP.
Conservatives and Labour choose to cancel the elections, and keep the present councillors for what maybe be 6 or 7 years - which some people on this thread arguing is abysmal - though it’s the term of a US Senator and French President. And really not the most “abysmal” thing happening around Local Government right now, is it?
"An immigration enforcement officer was an illegal migrant who stole money from small boat migrants, a court has heard.
Besmir Matera, from Albania, has been charged, with four other immigration officers, with conspiracy to steal following a Home Office investigation.
They are alleged to have stolen money from migrants when they arrived in the UK after being rescued from dinghies in the Channel between 2021 and 2022.
Mr Matera, 36, is also charged with entering the UK illegally between July 2003 and March 2004 by giving a false name, date of birth and nationality in an asylum application.
He is also charged with possessing false passports between 2011 and 2022 and a false driving licence between 2018 and 2022."
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
I've not heard of David Runciman until I came across this account of his thinking (by James Marriott), but his defence of democracy seems plausible. I like the example of WW1 France. Perhaps there's hope after all?
"Runciman’s thesis, roughly, is that any given week in a democracy looks like a clown show of dithering, delay, u-turns, squabbling and complacency. But from the longer perspective the chaos is effective — a symptom of democracy’s capacity to criticise itself, to change tack, to spread its bets widely, keep its options open and correct its failures.
"Democracies can just keep hitting “reset” in a way autocracies generally can’t. It looks like chaos (e.g. the last ten years of UK politics) in the short term. In the long term it’s often a kind of genius:
"In 1917, the penultimate year of the First World War, France got through four prime ministers. This looked unforgivably amateurish — especially when compared with the authority of Germany's “silent master” General Ludendorff. But after a series of duds France eventually landed on Georges Clémenceau, “Le Tigre” and the saviour of his country. Germany had no alternative to Ludendorff who would soon bring his nation to its knees.
"Liz Truss was bad. But just imagine if she was our dictator for life."
I take your point but what really saved France in 1917 (and 1918) was the British and Commonwealth armies, and the promise of the US troops coming in large numbers. France was nearly out of the war after the Nivelle Offensive, with huge mutinies among the troops.
Ultimately, what saved France was that “Revanche” was actually “When Germany starts the next war, we need to be ready”.
A key part of that preparation was building alliances and friendships. A reason that France got stomped in 1870 was that France was alone.
So the democratic governments in Paris made peace with the old enemy, Britain and the rather disliked Tsarist regime.
Meanwhile, the autocrats in Berlin fucked everyone else off with rigid arrogance.
So when WWI started, France had allies. Germany had… the Austrian-Hungarian empire
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
It seems to me that the local government election/funding problem illustrates a fairly diagnosable democracy problem along with a concept problem as well.
Firstly in any notionally democratic hierarchy a general rule applies, arising out of human nature: the higher level of the democratic hierarchy will always want to maximise its power and minimise its responsibility.
The conceptual problem in local democracy is that it is rational to want two incompatible things: local decision and accountability but also an absence of 'postcode lottery' about any local service we happen to want at any particular moment.
In respect of Westminster v local government this is fairly obvious. But because total state managed expenditure is a vast proportion of all activity from building nuclear submarines to park benches and playground swings it goes right down to the level of the village primary school and beyond.
Result: blame transference is one of the great creative industries of the democratic world. It is a social blight. Result: good well intentioned school governors (volunteers) and management etc spend long winter evenings exercising responsibility without power, while a thousand miles away well paid politicians exercise power without responsibility.
Underneath is the problem that local government has no constitutional basis and hence no security.
In most other democracies, the fundamentals of its local governance are set out in its constitution. For sure, constitutions can change - but that's normally an extended process with a series of hurdles to jump, and not something governments do lightly.
The absence of any formalised constitution in the UK means that local government exists and operates entirely at the whim of national government - it can be re-organised, abolished, have its election dates changed, have its funding cut or capped, all according to the political decisions of a majority party at Westminster, elected on 35-40% of the vote, and has next to no reliable funding sources of its own (other than, perhaps, parking charges - which in itself explains a lot).
There's perhaps a very gradual movement in the opposite direction with the introduction of regional mayors ?
And it ought to be acknowledged that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is causing the controversy discussed in the header, does significantly increase powers devolved to the higher tier of local government.
I am just wondering if the increase in 'powers' is actually an increase in responsibilities and liabilities but without all the powers necessary to do them effectively.
The effective bankruptcy of local government is the result of a massive increase in statutory duties without any kind of corresponding increase in revenue raising powers. Trying to fund child protection from car park fees doesn't work, and when large scale capital projects fall apart- looking a the Tory disaster in Woking- the road to ruin usual takes less than five years. The forced merger of local government units dating back to the Saxons in England and the Middle Ages in Scotland has left local powers a shadow of what they were before the reorganisation in 1974/5. Neither do units such as West Cheshire or East Ayrshire command much local loyalty. This is yet another way the Conservatives smashed things up and failed to build anything viable to replace them. Reform talk the same talk but are even less aware of the problem, which is why they have been so shocked by how hard it is to change things, even if you can move flags around.
Local government reform is an increasingly urgent problem, but it is also a real hot potato and few outside the political nerdery are even aware of the scale of the problem. Spoiler alert: it is already in the hundreds of billions.
All these reforms of local councils seem to be designed to do one thing only which is to centralise more power and take accountability even fuirther away from the electorate. That goies for all the psat reforms under both parties as well. This is not a party political issue, it is a politician issue. The centre wants more power (whatever the party in power) and they will get it in the (often false) name of efficiency
I am in favour of Localism, important and as described by you - which is why I oppose this governments awful Police Reforms, centralise more power at expense of Localism.
But Conservative Government, and many Conservative councils are the architects of the ongoing local Government re-organisation for streamlining for fiscal efficiencies. One in three people in England live in area covered by two local authorities — two chief executives, two sets of councillors, two finance directors - this reform slashes the number of councillors by 5,000 gets rid of highly-paid senior roles too.
BUt the question is whether having a single chief executive rather than 2 will make anyone's services better or better value for money. I am damn near certain that I will get worse - and less acountable - services from a South Lincolnshire Council than I have been getting from South Kesteven District Council. I am equally certain that I will see no drop in Council Tax as a result of this reorganisation so I will be paying more for less. That will be the story across the whole of England.
But would that be result of the re-organisation, or all the other factors and nuances of where local government is right now in this country that’s in the header and throughout this thread discussion?
Perhaps to over simplify the elephant in the room - central government doesn’t allow Local Authorities any real real authority, but what it has “stitched up” Local Authorities to deliver is not properly funded, either, and the whole edifice is headed towards bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, Front Page of the Daily Telegraph today is running a Campaign to Save Democracy, trying to convince us the decision is simply about a government trying to “save some council seats?” Which I’m calling a glib smokescreen, behind which is the real debate we should be having.
Well much as I hate to agree with the telegraph, in this instance I think they are right.
And if, as you seem to accept in your reply, the reorganisation will not make services better (in fact will make them worse) and will not reduce our Council Tax, but will make the whole system less accountable and less democratic, then what is the point of it?
There are two different factors at work here - why these local elections have been postponed as against the policy of unitary authorities (it's called unitarisation but that's a horrible word).
The reason the process is taking so long is because of the timescale of statutory consultation and then the time for the Government to decide which of the options for local Government re-organisation presented is the one they prefer (why it has to be down to the Government I don't know, a local referendum would be better).
Surrey had its consultation last summer (ended in August I believe) but that was on two clear options - one for two Councils (West and East) and one for three (likely West, North and East). The Government then took three months to reach a definitive conclusion - this was mainly due to the complete clear out of the DCLOG Ministerial team in the wake of the departure of Angela Rayner.
Even with a final decision, there remains an Order which has to be laid before Parliament before the process can officially begin and that includes the elections for Shadow Authorities in May this year and the eventual dissolution of the existing County and Borough/District Councils in March 2027 by which time some of the County Councillors elected in 2021 will have served nearly six years of a four year term.
The process in other councils (Norfolk, Suffolk and East & West Sussex) has been incredibly slow with consultations still going on - it beggars belief it has taken so long and that's what we should be getting annoyed about. A second postponement of elections means Shadow elections in May 2027 and the dissolution of existing authorities in March 2028 meaning Councillors elected in 2021 will serve nearly seven years of a four year term.
With hindsight, the 2025 County elections in those authorities could and should have taken place and that is the problem.
There'sa wider debate about the role and scope of local councils and local Government but that's not why the elections this year have been cancelled - it's the process and for once you can blame Labour for that (though there were, as I recall, similar delays during the Conservative administrations). It's different when you look at places like Cornwall where the County simply swallowed up the Districts and Boroughs - the current model is creating new Councils and that creates legal and HR challenges.
“With hindsight” or clear lessons to be learned and saved as government record, to infirm the next upheaval in Local Government?
If I am understanding you correctly, you advocate speeding the process up by scrapping the lengthly consultation process? And if it’s going to be a lengthy process, don’t cancel elections? Know as foresight not hindsight how long the process realistically will take>.
I would counter, if you definitely know you are into last year, it’s performative and wasteful to hold elections for something abolished in 12 months, councillors abolished in 12 months. Instead bring in change managers as consultants to manage the change on time.
I’m not convinced a referendum would speed things up, or be strongly democratic way of deciding it. The only correct decision is to scrap having two councils at same time, and we elect councillors and governments to ensure the right decisions and strong government happen. When you put it out in a referendum the answer you get can be a lottery between the right way to proceeded and the wrong one. To argue for referendum on this, is at same time to trash the strong intellectual arguments for representative democracy as being stronger than “referendum democracy.” You can spot the mindless left and right wing Populists on PB, when they say give us a referendum on this. And no surprise the fact is Reform and Adolf Hitler both favour “referendum democracy” over representative democracy.
You do misunderstand me - there are three stages to the process.
First, the Councils themselves need to work up proposals, second, these proposals are put to a statutory consultation and third the Government reviews the result of the consultation and decides which structure will be the future organisation for local Government in the area concerned.
The problem I have is not with the process but how long it has taken. Norfolk, for example, despite being in the first tranche of Councils to be restructured, has only just reached the end of the second stage, the consultation, hence the need for a second postponement of elections.
I am convinced the Ministerial clearout of DCLOG last autumn has caused a lot of delay to the third stage of the process but there should have been a time limit to the first stage - the second stage is defined by law and I certainly wouldn't advocating reducing or limiting it.
As for your tirade against a referendum, well, yes, referenda have had a bad name since 2016 but my view was around having the referendum at the end of the consultation process rather than taking the outcome back to central Government and waiting 3-6 months to decide which way the Government would go. All that creates is uncertainty for staff (remember them?) and problems over longer term decision making such as funding for capital projects.
I'm certainly not suggesting holding elections in 2026 for an authority which will be abolished in 2027 and indeed I'll stretch that and say for those Councils in the first tranche, you could argue holding elections in 2025 with abolition scheduled in the spring of 2027 would also have been wasteful but that's not what has happened.
My argument is the postponement is NOT politically motivated to "stop" Reform or "save" Labour and Conservative seats but represents a failure to deliver a process to the timescale set out and that failure sits elsewhere.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Net migration won't matter to Reform voters if you still 35k asylum queue-bargers coming over the Channel.
Big win for the Scottish Lib Dems in the East Dumbarton Council by-election yesterday. SNP second, then Reform and Labour, then Green, Tory and a very minor party.
Apparently the East Dunbartonshire by-election was a disaster for the Scottish Tories who were looking to defend the seat but crashed into sixth place. There were mitigating circumstances as the man who was being replaced was jailed for romance fraud last year and was forced out.
It was real bad. I suppose another mitigating circumstance is that the ward is in a LibDem Westminster seat (was Jo Swinson's) which they are hoping to take in May for Holyrood. They will have been all over it. But it does show the vulnerability of the Tories in high status/high income areas to the LibDems. This is probably as close to Surrey as you get in Scotland.
The Lib Dems should target serious resources at Strathkelvin and Bearsden in May. I dont think any of their other seats, save maybe Shetland will be under any real threat from the SNP. If they can harness disaffected Tories and get the message out that Slab wont win here, I can see them doing very well. The incumbent, Rona Mackay is not well known but is standing down.
The equivalent seat in a past guise was won by Dr Jean Turner, who stood as an independent, I think on local health issues
I wonder what odds you could have got on the Greens selecting a plumber, Reform selecting a southern academic and Labour selecting anyone but Andy Burnham in a vital Manchester by-election contest.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Net migration won't matter to Reform voters if you still 35k asylum queue-bargers coming over the Channel.
Labour arent trying to win back a standard Reform voter but the most marginal Reform voters who have only switched to them in the last 12 months. Amongst that group if they see progress it will make a difference.
Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire · 1h Hollie Ridley, Labour's general secretary, criticised "senior party figures" who have briefed that the Greens are in contention in Gorton and Denton last night
She told the government's weekly spads meeting that suggestions Zack Polanski's party might win are "bollocks"
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Net migration won't matter to Reform voters if you still 35k asylum queue-bargers coming over the Channel.
Labour arent trying to win back a standard Reform voter but the most marginal Reform voters who have only switched to them in the last 12 months. Amongst that group if they see progress it will make a difference.
Really not sure it will.
Plus, they have to make "progress" - Labour's hope on what counts as progress won't allign with that of most voters.
I wonder what odds you could have got on the Greens selecting a plumber, Reform selecting a southern academic and Labour selecting anyone but Andy Burnham in a vital Manchester by-election contest.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
There will continue to be challenges for whichever government is in power.
You don't have "50-100k" arriving over the channel each year.
41,472 in 2025.
That number is those who were detected.
Most are claiming asylum, so they want to be detected. We don't, obv, know how many are undetected, but the number is estimated to be small.
The claim that the number of people slipping undetected into the country is small is, er, audacious. Most know that even with our generous system they don't have much of a claim to asylum.
There is no "chain of custody" that can be secure in this case, and the seizure is very probably illegal - though since the Justice Dept is no longer enforcing federal law except at the whim of the administration, I'm not sure what that means anymore.
Former FBI official: Tulsi Gabbard should have nothing to do with law enforcement operations whatsoever. At one point, she was in a truck with boxes of what are apparently ballots. She is gonna need to be on the chain of custody for those ballots and explain to defense counsel why she was with them and what she was doing. https://x.com/factpostnews/status/2016959131119239672
We basically somehow ended up with David Icke as prime minister for two months didn't we? How the hell did we manage that?
She wasn’t always this crazy, was she? It’s like she has been captured by a brain washing cult.
Maybe it’s those social media algorithms - everyone says they are dangerous. Or, being booted out of politics altogether, so fast, is hard to come to terms with?
Let’s hope Liz is still switched on enough to be making lots of money from having been Prime Minister. Boris, Blair and Dave are raking it in.
Comes from a weird culty family. Her CND father disowned her for even standing as a Tory in 2005. Maybe the weirdness was baked in.
😳
It looks like the Adam’s Family, only gender reversed.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Net migration won't matter to Reform voters if you still 35k asylum queue-bargers coming over the Channel.
Labour arent trying to win back a standard Reform voter but the most marginal Reform voters who have only switched to them in the last 12 months. Amongst that group if they see progress it will make a difference.
Really not sure it will.
Plus, they have to make "progress" - Labour's hope on what counts as progress won't allign with that of most voters.
Again, they don't need most voters. They only had 33% to win a huge majority. Somewhere around 28% will be a decent result for them next time. But yes, of course they need to deliver or they get booted out.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
On topic I think this is a terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact. The fact that some Councillors will be sitting for 7 years after having been elected for 4 and that the Electoral Commission themselves are scathing in their criticism of the Government and say that the reasons given for delays are simply not valid should lead us all to oppose these postponements.
“terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact’
I think there are plenty of carefully researched facts in there, as well as opinion. I won’t apologise for re-writing the point I wanted to make about state of Local Democracy, and awfulness of national discourse on the mess of it it, in order to make it more of an Opinion Piece - because a punchy opinion piece header needs punchy provocation in it, to be the proper header to draw discussion.
And I am sure I have covered off what you are asking for, the key paragraph in bold in the header.
The truth is exactly what voters need to hear. Why are service’s scrapped and Council Taxes hiked, regardless who I vote in? What is the actual problem going on? And in this democracy, who is being honest and upfront about all council finances hogtied and heading to bankruptcy – and offering us solutions for it?
And on the solution to all this, I am sensing we are both actually in agreement. Less centralised control, more localism.
The problem councils have is that they are legally mandated to cover the costs of adult and children social care, and as these costs have risen continuously and successive governments have cut fiscal support to local authorities everything else has been squeezed to breaking point. The Osborne austerity drive in particular saw local government bear the brunt of central government spending cuts. There is nothing especially mysterious about what is going on IMHO.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
Indeed Peter.
Or Labour Governments of the same era selling off housing stock at below market value. You wouldn't catch Conservative Governments doing that.
It appears that, as with their oil, China is the buyer at a significant discount to market price.
Russia is slowly being hollowed-out as a country, they’re trying to fight a ground war and have run out of tanks. The entire Soviet stockpile of more than ten thousand tanks, all gone to give the Ukranians some scrap metal for recycling.
Reminded me: The gold Brown sold off for £3.5bn is now worth £50bn.
That is three Tory black holes....
To be fair to Gordon, the Tories had "bought too much cheap gold". According to him.
I'll buy as much as you can find at his sale price of $275 an ounce.
As it's over $5,000 today....
Fairy nuff, Mark, but it is hindsighting. We can all do that.
Indeed Peter.
Or Labour Governments of the same era selling off housing stock at below market value. You wouldn't catch Conservative Governments doing that.
Even worse the sell off of the rolling stock when rail was privatised. Shocking.
On topic I think this is a terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact. The fact that some Councillors will be sitting for 7 years after having been elected for 4 and that the Electoral Commission themselves are scathing in their criticism of the Government and say that the reasons given for delays are simply not valid should lead us all to oppose these postponements.
“terrible thread header filled with personal opinion disguised as fact’
I think there are plenty of carefully researched facts in there, as well as opinion. I won’t apologise for re-writing the point I wanted to make about state of Local Democracy, and awfulness of national discourse on the mess of it it, in order to make it more of an Opinion Piece - because a punchy opinion piece header needs punchy provocation in it, to be the proper header to draw discussion.
And I am sure I have covered off what you are asking for, the key paragraph in bold in the header.
The truth is exactly what voters need to hear. Why are service’s scrapped and Council Taxes hiked, regardless who I vote in? What is the actual problem going on? And in this democracy, who is being honest and upfront about all council finances hogtied and heading to bankruptcy – and offering us solutions for it?
And on the solution to all this, I am sensing we are both actually in agreement. Less centralised control, more localism.
The problem councils have is that they are legally mandated to cover the costs of adult and children social care, and as these costs have risen continuously and successive governments have cut fiscal support to local authorities everything else has been squeezed to breaking point. The Osborne austerity drive in particular saw local government bear the brunt of central government spending cuts. There is nothing especially mysterious about what is going on IMHO.
I go back to my preferred solution of abolishing local Councils and having central government fund social care itself, since its mandating it. Or at least if not abolishing them, removing the mandates.
Anything central government mandates for all citizens, central government should fund. Local government should fund local choices, not central choices.
If central government does not want to fund social care, it should drop the mandate and Councils could then democratically decide whether they want to do it, or not.
Trump chooses KEVIN WARSH for Fed chair. Trump considered Warsh in 2017 but chose Jerome Powell instead. The president announced his decision on Truth Social.
Since leaving the Fed nearly 15 years ago, Mr. Warsh, who currently works with billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller and is also a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has emerged as a staunch critic of the central bank.
NY Times live blog
Does his appointment have to get ratified by Congress? If so, he's rather shot himslef in the foot....
Unfortunately Congress is about as much use as a wet fart.
The Senate will just ratify whoever Trump nominates.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
There will continue to be challenges for whichever government is in power.
You don't have "50-100k" arriving over the channel each year.
41,472 in 2025.
That number is those who were detected.
Most are claiming asylum, so they want to be detected. We don't, obv, know how many are undetected, but the number is estimated to be small.
The claim that the number of people slipping undetected into the country is small is, er, audacious. Most know that even with our generous system they don't have much of a claim to asylum.
It is possible to do studies on people working illegally in the country, i.e. without citizenship or a visa. There are quite a lot of people illegally in the country, but they’re nearly all visa overstayers. You also get people who are documented, but then working illegally. I do not see the evidence that there are significant numbers of people coming over on boats undetected. And generic paranoia about immigration does not count as evidence.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
Indeed - but upon what basis is this figure arrived at?
The safe life for DTD683 comes to mind - a figure was invented to accommodate politics and peoples careers.
EDIT: from that link
'These statistics should not be used to infer the size of the irregular population in the UK, nor the total number of people entering the UK irregularly. For a number of reasons, it is not possible to know the exact size of the irregular population, or the number entering irregularly, and so we have not produced any official estimates for this number."
Trump chooses KEVIN WARSH for Fed chair. Trump considered Warsh in 2017 but chose Jerome Powell instead. The president announced his decision on Truth Social.
Since leaving the Fed nearly 15 years ago, Mr. Warsh, who currently works with billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller and is also a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has emerged as a staunch critic of the central bank.
NY Times live blog
Does his appointment have to get ratified by Congress? If so, he's rather shot himslef in the foot....
Unfortunately Congress is about as much use as a wet fart.
The Senate will just ratify whoever Trump nominates.
They ratified Tulsi Gabbard FFS.
They drew the line at Matt Gaetz, however (although our @Sandpit supported the pick).
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Still waiting on 'smash the gangs' though. I know people conflate, falsely, illegal immigrantion with legal and the boats, but while you have 50-100K arriving over the channel each year, and while there are stories such as this:
Indeed - but upon what basis is this figure arrived at?
The safe life for DTD683 comes to mind - a figure was invented to accommodate politics and peoples careers.
EDIT: from that link
'These statistics should not be used to infer the size of the irregular population in the UK, nor the total number of people entering the UK irregularly. For a number of reasons, it is not possible to know the exact size of the irregular population, or the number entering irregularly, and so we have not produced any official estimates for this number."
I’ve already given a link to Migration Observatory, who summarise the topic and provide ongoing links to various studies.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Net migration won't matter to Reform voters if you still 35k asylum queue-bargers coming over the Channel.
Labour arent trying to win back a standard Reform voter but the most marginal Reform voters who have only switched to them in the last 12 months. Amongst that group if they see progress it will make a difference.
Really not sure it will.
Plus, they have to make "progress" - Labour's hope on what counts as progress won't allign with that of most voters.
That is essentially true. I was watching some old rubbish a while ago suggesting that net zero isn't good enough for a Labour Government to turn around their immigration negatives. The people who are extremely exercised by increased migration also want the figure to be significantly negative over the next years because Labour oversaw net increases of up to a million in each year since 2019 during the so called "Starmerwave" and they want those people to leave too.
So Kemi's ICE style Border Force idea isn't simply performative cruelty it is performative pragmatism.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
I don't know - I always think there is something odd about vegetarians - maybe the link with Hitler is why...
More seriously, too often people on PB (notoriously centrist, mostly anti-Brexit, mostly very much anti Reform) have no concept of the great unwashed. My neighbour, a classic salt of the Earth carpet layer, came out with "Farage is right*" totally unprompted one weekend. A lot of people will vote for Reform and many of them will also think Tommeh Two Names has a point about that thing that cannot be discussed on PB.**
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
No you are right. The sort of people minded to support Farage racism aren't going to be squeamish when Ewok Powell (Tiny Tom) tells them to vote Reform.
Tricky for Farage, and Goodwin. If they noisily disown Tommy Robinson's endorsement, I don't think they gain many votes. But they may lose some, as there's a sub-section of Reform voters who think Tommy walks on water. They may stay at home.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
I claimed Hitler was a vegetarian, and lost the argument. There’s not a clear picture on it. 🥕
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
I don't know - I always think there is something odd about vegetarians - maybe the link with Hitler is why...
More seriously, too often people on PB (notoriously centrist, mostly anti-Brexit, mostly very much anti Reform) have no concept of the great unwashed. My neighbour, a classic salt of the Earth carpet layer, came out with "Farage is right*" totally unprompted one weekend. A lot of people will vote for Reform and many of them will also think Tommeh Two Names has a point about that thing that cannot be discussed on PB.**
*Paraphrase - cannot recall the exact discussion.
** No, not voting reform
I think there's something odd about people who think there's something odd about vegetarians. And I'm a fully-fledged carnivore.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
I don't know - I always think there is something odd about vegetarians - maybe the link with Hitler is why...
More seriously, too often people on PB (notoriously centrist, mostly anti-Brexit, mostly very much anti Reform) have no concept of the great unwashed. My neighbour, a classic salt of the Earth carpet layer, came out with "Farage is right*" totally unprompted one weekend. A lot of people will vote for Reform and many of them will also think Tommeh Two Names has a point about that thing that cannot be discussed on PB.**
*Paraphrase - cannot recall the exact discussion.
** No, not voting reform
I think there's something odd about people who think there's something odd about vegetarians. And I'm a fully-fledged carnivore.
It's the insisting on eating venison you find odd, I think.
Tricky for Farage, and Goodwin. If they noisily disown Tommy Robinson's endorsement, I don't think they gain many votes. But they may lose some, as there's a sub-section of Reform voters who think Tommy walks on water. They may stay at home.
However. The Greens have selected a trans woman. I know this cos FB keeps telling me.
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
I claimed Hitler was a vegetarian, and lost the argument. There’s not a clear picture on it. 🥕
Hitler was anti-smoking, which, I am assured, was one reason that the UK was slow to move against tobacco.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Tricky for Farage, and Goodwin. If they noisily disown Tommy Robinson's endorsement, I don't think they gain many votes. But they may lose some, as there's a sub-section of Reform voters who think Tommy walks on water. They may stay at home.
However. The Greens have selected a trans woman. I know this cos FB keeps telling me.
Yeah, that well know part of Greater Manchester. Bromsgrove.
The Telegraph has uncovered yet more about the UK government's 'AI skills hub' that suggests the entire thing was a rushed, vibe-coded hack job (which cost £4.1 million of taxpayers' money).
Their investigation reveals it includes:
- courses that seem to be AI-generated scams - courses that are more than 20 years old - 'degrees' that cost thousands of pounds yet offer no meaningful qualifications - courses that don't exist at all
And so much more. This bit killed me: "One course on 'digital agriculture fundamentals' is provided by a Canadian education company and requires applicants to live in the rural provinces of Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan."
Yet the government is digging in, saying the hub is meant to provide "deep and specialist expertise in AI", and that it intentionally includes "some hybrid international options".
To be clear, if one of the AI companies the government so admires had released this product, the person responsible would have been fired within a day.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Net migration won't matter to Reform voters if you still 35k asylum queue-bargers coming over the Channel.
I don’t believe zero net migration will particularly help Labour because
1. That could still mean native Brits leaving in their 100,000s and somalians (or whatever) replacing them at scale and
2. Half the problem is the people already here. The Boriswave. Brits want a lot of them GONE
Tricky for Farage, and Goodwin. If they noisily disown Tommy Robinson's endorsement, I don't think they gain many votes. But they may lose some, as there's a sub-section of Reform voters who think Tommy walks on water. They may stay at home.
However. The Greens have selected a trans woman. I know this cos FB keeps telling me.
Is TR more or less racist than Matt "people with a non-British grandparent aren't really British" Goodwin? Google AI reckons that TR is more accepting of people with a migrant heritage than Goodwin, though it's very equivocal on a direct comparison.
For avoidance of doubt, I consider them both vile racists but I'd be more wary of encountering TR in a dark alley...
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Those are slackers.
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
The Telegraph has uncovered yet more about the UK government's 'AI skills hub' that suggests the entire thing was a rushed, vibe-coded hack job (which cost £4.1 million of taxpayers' money).
Their investigation reveals it includes:
- courses that seem to be AI-generated scams - courses that are more than 20 years old - 'degrees' that cost thousands of pounds yet offer no meaningful qualifications - courses that don't exist at all
And so much more. This bit killed me: "One course on 'digital agriculture fundamentals' is provided by a Canadian education company and requires applicants to live in the rural provinces of Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan."
Yet the government is digging in, saying the hub is meant to provide "deep and specialist expertise in AI", and that it intentionally includes "some hybrid international options".
To be clear, if one of the AI companies the government so admires had released this product, the person responsible would have been fired within a day.
The things that does rather stagger is that there was no apparent User Acceptance Testing. I'd have recruited a sample of the people supposed to use this, given it to them, and got them to feed back on what they found.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Those are slackers.
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
Labour conceivably gains a point or two when net migration falls to almost zero. Probably a decent chance then of a Labour lead in one poll, anyone willing to bet
Net migration won't matter to Reform voters if you still 35k asylum queue-bargers coming over the Channel.
I don’t believe zero net migration will particularly help Labour because
1. That could still mean native Brits leaving in their 100,000s and somalians (or whatever) replacing them at scale and
2. Half the problem is the people already here. The Boriswave. Brits want a lot of them GONE
Yeah, you’re right I think.
The problem with the Boriswave is ILR after five years. Labour is doing something about that.
If he's right, we really are stuffed. Either we get screwed as we enter NAFTA, or we get screwed trying to get back into EU. Or we get even more screwed going it alone.
Tricky for Farage, and Goodwin. If they noisily disown Tommy Robinson's endorsement, I don't think they gain many votes. But they may lose some, as there's a sub-section of Reform voters who think Tommy walks on water. They may stay at home.
However. The Greens have selected a trans woman. I know this cos FB keeps telling me.
Yeah, that well know part of Greater Manchester. Bromsgrove.
It's a legitimate part of the Greater Manchester Co-Prosperity Sphere.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Those are slackers.
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
Which group do you reckon Leon is a member of? Or is he just a Gammon?
If he's right, we really are stuffed. Either we get screwed as we enter NAFTA, or we get screwed trying to get back into EU. Or we get even more screwed going it alone.
Sigh.
Almost like leaving the EU's single market was a bad idea....
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
I don't know - I always think there is something odd about vegetarians - maybe the link with Hitler is why...
More seriously, too often people on PB (notoriously centrist, mostly anti-Brexit, mostly very much anti Reform) have no concept of the great unwashed. My neighbour, a classic salt of the Earth carpet layer, came out with "Farage is right*" totally unprompted one weekend. A lot of people will vote for Reform and many of them will also think Tommeh Two Names has a point about that thing that cannot be discussed on PB.**
*Paraphrase - cannot recall the exact discussion.
** No, not voting reform
My neighbour is a retired market trader.
He's stood (at council elections) for the Tories, Reform, UKIP and the English Democrats and was actually on the council for a number of years. He has ... views. And the odd flag.
But then, I live in Donny, not Harrogate or Surrey. Brexit was not a surprise.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Those are slackers.
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
Which group do you reckon Leon is a member of? Or is he just a Gammon?
I’ve asked the Lizard Men to kick a memo up to the Zeta Reticulans who report to the Grand Council of The Illuminati. Who report to the Bildberg Group *and* The Trilateral Commission.
They’ll report back on @Leon sometime in the next few centuries. Bloody Process State…
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Those are slackers.
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
The Telegraph has uncovered yet more about the UK government's 'AI skills hub' that suggests the entire thing was a rushed, vibe-coded hack job (which cost £4.1 million of taxpayers' money).
Their investigation reveals it includes:
- courses that seem to be AI-generated scams - courses that are more than 20 years old - 'degrees' that cost thousands of pounds yet offer no meaningful qualifications - courses that don't exist at all
And so much more. This bit killed me: "One course on 'digital agriculture fundamentals' is provided by a Canadian education company and requires applicants to live in the rural provinces of Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan."
Yet the government is digging in, saying the hub is meant to provide "deep and specialist expertise in AI", and that it intentionally includes "some hybrid international options".
To be clear, if one of the AI companies the government so admires had released this product, the person responsible would have been fired within a day.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
I’m stunned by that figure. Given how much Tommy is demonised by all media constantly - i would honestly have expected lower single digits. 5% or something. 10% at absolute most
But a quarter of the country?
Wow. Shows how the UK has shifted hard to the right. Encouraging news
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Meanwhile, in "some endorsements you probably don't want" news,
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
I don't see that at all. Hitler hasn't been the kiss of death for vegetarianism. People need to grow up and vote based on their own thought process, not sloppily follow 'vibes'.
I don't know - I always think there is something odd about vegetarians - maybe the link with Hitler is why...
More seriously, too often people on PB (notoriously centrist, mostly anti-Brexit, mostly very much anti Reform) have no concept of the great unwashed. My neighbour, a classic salt of the Earth carpet layer, came out with "Farage is right*" totally unprompted one weekend. A lot of people will vote for Reform and many of them will also think Tommeh Two Names has a point about that thing that cannot be discussed on PB.**
*Paraphrase - cannot recall the exact discussion.
** No, not voting reform
My neighbour is a retired market trader.
He's stood (at council elections) for the Tories, Reform, UKIP and the English Democrats and was actually on the council for a number of years. He has ... views. And the odd flag.
But then, I live in Donny, not Harrogate or Surrey. Brexit was not a surprise.
Brexit surprised a lot of people who only knew Remainers, like a lot of my Uni colleagues.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Or that UFOs are real and AIs are conscious?
Of all days to make these remarks. Jeez you’re a dumb f*ck
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Those are slackers.
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
Which group do you reckon Leon is a member of? Or is he just a Gammon?
Acorn-fed jamón Ibérico with Falangist tendencies if you don’t mind.
YouGov has 24% of the British public with favourable views of Tommy Robinson. I think it is reasonable to suppose that those 24% are more likely to vote Reform UK than other parties.
Yes, and how many of the 24% believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon?
Those are slackers.
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
So who keeps hammering us at Cricket?
It's a very well organised conspiracy.
But really - are you going to believe in a continent where dumping criminals results in an affluent social democracy? With a national animal that is a mammal that lays eggs, has a duck bill and poisonous thumbs? Black swans??
Comments
https://www.darlington.gov.uk/news/cabinet-to-discuss-special-free-school-plans
So SEND teaching - check
Taxis due to delays in local provisioning of specialist school places - check
Central Government stopping Public sector projects delayed for no real reason - check
Stupid cost saving attempts - check
Labour and Co-operative Party. 650
Scottish Conservative and Unionist. 283
ReformUK 709
Scottish National Party (SNP). 789
Scottish Liberal Democrats. 1,744
Scottish Family Party. 35
Scottish Greens. 371
Which does suggest a fairly heavily blotted copybook for the Tories,
(Kosovars speak Albanian, which is why this scam worked...)
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has endorsed Reform UK’s by-election candidate, after Labour warned he represents “extreme” politics.
Matt Goodwin - GB News presenter and former university academic - was unveiled as Reform UK’s candidate for the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this week...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-matt-goodwin-tommy-robinson-b2910833.html
https://bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn0kpj99kegt
There will continue to be challenges for whichever government is in power.
Conservatives and Labour choose to cancel the elections, and keep the present councillors for what maybe be 6 or 7 years - which some people on this thread arguing is abysmal - though it’s the term of a US Senator and French President. And really not the most “abysmal” thing happening around Local Government right now, is it?
A key part of that preparation was building alliances and friendships. A reason that France got stomped in 1870 was that France was alone.
So the democratic governments in Paris made peace with the old enemy, Britain and the rather disliked Tsarist regime.
Meanwhile, the autocrats in Berlin fucked everyone else off with rigid arrogance.
So when WWI started, France had allies. Germany had… the Austrian-Hungarian empire
And if, as you seem to accept in your reply, the reorganisation will not make services better (in fact will make them worse) and will not reduce our Council Tax, but will make the whole system less accountable and less democratic, then what is the point of it?
First, the Councils themselves need to work up proposals, second, these proposals are put to a statutory consultation and third the Government reviews the result of the consultation and decides which structure will be the future organisation for local Government in the area concerned.
The problem I have is not with the process but how long it has taken. Norfolk, for example, despite being in the first tranche of Councils to be restructured, has only just reached the end of the second stage, the consultation, hence the need for a second postponement of elections.
I am convinced the Ministerial clearout of DCLOG last autumn has caused a lot of delay to the third stage of the process but there should have been a time limit to the first stage - the second stage is defined by law and I certainly wouldn't advocating reducing or limiting it.
As for your tirade against a referendum, well, yes, referenda have had a bad name since 2016 but my view was around having the referendum at the end of the consultation process rather than taking the outcome back to central Government and waiting 3-6 months to decide which way the Government would go. All that creates is uncertainty for staff (remember them?) and problems over longer term decision making such as funding for capital projects.
I'm certainly not suggesting holding elections in 2026 for an authority which will be abolished in 2027 and indeed I'll stretch that and say for those Councils in the first tranche, you could argue holding elections in 2025 with abolition scheduled in the spring of 2027 would also have been wasteful but that's not what has happened.
My argument is the postponement is NOT politically motivated to "stop" Reform or "save" Labour and Conservative seats but represents a failure to deliver a process to the timescale set out and that failure sits elsewhere.
@meganekenyon
·
37m
Polanski and Spencer officially launch her candidacy for the Gorton & Denton by-election.
https://x.com/meganekenyon/status/2017206178212708377
The equivalent seat in a past guise was won by Dr Jean Turner, who stood as an independent, I think on local health issues
Corrected: was Dr Jean Turner
@patrickkmaguire
·
1h
Hollie Ridley, Labour's general secretary, criticised "senior party figures" who have briefed that the Greens are in contention in Gorton and Denton last night
She told the government's weekly spads meeting that suggestions Zack Polanski's party might win are "bollocks"
https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/2017191823131726087
Plus, they have to make "progress" - Labour's hope on what counts as progress won't allign with that of most voters.
He held a press conference and said (literally) he didn’t want their votes.
Wonder what will happen here?
Most know that even with our generous system they don't have much of a claim to asylum.
Former FBI official: Tulsi Gabbard should have nothing to do with law enforcement operations whatsoever. At one point, she was in a truck with boxes of what are apparently ballots. She is gonna need to be on the chain of custody for those ballots and explain to defense counsel why she was with them and what she was doing.
https://x.com/factpostnews/status/2016959131119239672
It looks like the Adam’s Family, only gender reversed.
Or Labour Governments of the same era selling off housing stock at below market value. You wouldn't catch Conservative Governments doing that.
Anything central government mandates for all citizens, central government should fund. Local government should fund local choices, not central choices.
If central government does not want to fund social care, it should drop the mandate and Councils could then democratically decide whether they want to do it, or not.
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/man-dressed-duck-vandalises-glasgow-33323547.amp
Edit - Apologies for doxxing MalcolmG
The Senate will just ratify whoever Trump nominates.
They ratified Tulsi Gabbard FFS.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/ has links to various studies.
“Picture yourself at a desk in the office” to the tune of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds! 🤣
It was on YouTube, but now deleted
🍄Starmer’s China delegation feasts on hallucinogenic mushrooms
Find out more ⬇️
telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/3…
https://x.com/telepolitics/status/2017198737244713205?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The safe life for DTD683 comes to mind - a figure was invented to accommodate politics and peoples careers.
EDIT: from that link
'These statistics should not be used to infer the size of the irregular population in the UK, nor the total number of people entering the UK irregularly. For a number of reasons, it is not possible to know the exact size of the irregular population, or the number entering irregularly, and so we have not produced any official estimates for this number."
So Kemi's ICE style Border Force idea isn't simply performative cruelty it is performative pragmatism.
More seriously, too often people on PB (notoriously centrist, mostly anti-Brexit, mostly very much anti Reform) have no concept of the great unwashed. My neighbour, a classic salt of the Earth carpet layer, came out with "Farage is right*" totally unprompted one weekend. A lot of people will vote for Reform and many of them will also think Tommeh Two Names has a point about that thing that cannot be discussed on PB.**
*Paraphrase - cannot recall the exact discussion.
** No, not voting reform
And I'm a fully-fledged carnivore.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/30/don-lemon-minnesota-protest-charges
I know this cos FB keeps telling me.
A paper from Stanford shows just how much chatbots make things up and can't tell that that's what they've done.
The "hallucination" problem is the core architecture of LLMs, not a bug that can ever be fixed.
https://x.com/MrEwanMorrison/status/2016955952197456141?s=20
Their investigation reveals it includes:
- courses that seem to be AI-generated scams
- courses that are more than 20 years old
- 'degrees' that cost thousands of pounds yet offer no meaningful qualifications
- courses that don't exist at all
And so much more. This bit killed me: "One course on 'digital agriculture fundamentals' is provided by a Canadian education company and requires applicants to live in the rural provinces of Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan."
Yet the government is digging in, saying the hub is meant to provide "deep and specialist expertise in AI", and that it intentionally includes "some hybrid international options".
To be clear, if one of the AI companies the government so admires had released this product, the person responsible would have been fired within a day.
https://x.com/ednewtonrex/status/2017171445722312747?s=20
1. That could still mean native Brits leaving in their 100,000s and somalians (or whatever) replacing them at scale and
2. Half the problem is the people already here. The Boriswave. Brits want a lot of them GONE
Google AI reckons that TR is more accepting of people with a migrant heritage than Goodwin, though it's very equivocal on a direct comparison.
For avoidance of doubt, I consider them both vile racists but I'd be more wary of encountering TR in a dark alley...
Real Men (TM) disbelieve in the tough stuff - the Australia Fake Continent conspiracy, for example.
But it is very very poor.
The things that does rather stagger is that there was no apparent User Acceptance Testing. I'd have recruited a sample of the people supposed to use this, given it to them, and got them to feed back on what they found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_conspiracy_theory
The problem with the Boriswave is ILR after five years. Labour is doing something about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGNgTz1Rqfw
If he's right, we really are stuffed. Either we get screwed as we enter NAFTA, or we get screwed trying to get back into EU. Or we get even more screwed going it alone.
Sigh.
He's stood (at council elections) for the Tories, Reform, UKIP and the English Democrats and was actually on the council for a number of years. He has ... views. And the odd flag.
But then, I live in Donny, not Harrogate or Surrey. Brexit was not a surprise.
They’ll report back on @Leon sometime in the next few centuries. Bloody Process State…
But a quarter of the country?
Wow. Shows how the UK has shifted hard to the right. Encouraging news
But really - are you going to believe in a continent where dumping criminals results in an affluent social democracy? With a national animal that is a mammal that lays eggs, has a duck bill and poisonous thumbs? Black swans??
Who made this shit up?