As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
Labour MPs are this evening demanding that Keir Starmer throw Peter Mandelson out of the Labour Party over his links to the convicted paedo Jeffrey Epstein.
One government minister told me they were "disgusted and infuriated" by Mandelson, and demanded the prime minister "throw him out of the party, out of the Lords". They added that the fresh dump of Epstein files this weekend are "so awful" and enough to radicalise, telling me, "I'm not ready to burn it all down".
Another senior backbench Labour MP said "If he wasn’t as close to McSweeney, Mandelson would have been kicked out of the party already."
A third Labour MP said Mandelson must "not be allowed to wriggle out of anything" when it comes to Epstein.
If anyone's feeling over-promoted and out of their depth in their day job, I can heartily recommend "listening to Zach Polanski talk about foreign policy and defence" as a cure
There are two people best qualified to screw the nation and their own voters and they are on the ascent. They are Wacky "we are leaving NATO" Zachy and Nigel "I'm Americanising UK healthcare" Farage.
I can't abide populism. It's all delusional nonsense. But if pushed I'd prefer my delusional nonsense to be free of small-minded, mean-spirited xenophobia, so it's Reform UK I'm most worried about.
The problem with Zach, like Corbyn before him is his function will be to split the left of centre vote and deliver some degree of RefCon Government.
Legalising class A drugs ! Not sure this is a vote winner .
It would collapse much of the systems of organised crime in the U.K.
yes and all the profits could be used to help the drongos that take drugs instead of wasting millions pretending they can catch the criminals.
Pissing money away on smackheads?
What sort of woke nonsense is this?
I'm quite surprised from Malc on this.
There are massive issues with drug legalisation. The 'Make it legal, tax and regulate it' argument - how is that going to work exactly? The whole point of legalisation is that the state doesn't have the resources to counter the trade in illegal drugs, so how are they suddenly going to have the resources to counter the trade in non-legally sanctioned drugs? Or put another way, why would anyone buy weaker, more expensive, more regulated drugs, in preference to the cheaper, stronger stuff from their dealer? The only way it can work is with massive, expensive enforcement against the illicit drugs trade, and if they can do that, why legalise in the first place?
Drugs are serious now - cannabis is implicated in a vast amount of terrorist and other attacks - it destroys the brain. One cannot legalise it, or even decriminalise it, without a hugely corrosive impact on society. It should be made utterly unacceptable socially, and its use heavily penalised.
you could say the same about alcohol
Not really. To make serious money from alcohol, you need to be selling beverages - harder to smuggle and trade illegally, though smuggling and a counterfeit industry exists.
The tax on alcohol is modulated to make counterfeits of basic booze unattractive. Malaysian blokes making rare vintage Bordeaux is a different world.
Fair play to Burnham, his backing the Labour candidate on the campaign trail and not throwing his toys out the pram will do him good longer term
If Burnham spends a fair bit of time over the next few weeks campaigning directly alongside the Labour candidate for G&D, thus enthusiastically endorsing her, I reckon Labour could spring a surprise and win it.
Discover phase might be...erm... rather interesting.
The Epstein estate settled claims for damages with over 150 victims. So if anbody has a good idea of the extent of Epstein's abuse it's the estate. Given the many public claims that already involve Trump and other people it's a dead cert that the Epstein estate's records would reveal more perpetrators. Other than the millions of remaining documents that DOJ is still sitting on, dragging the estate into the spotlight is perhaps the worst thing that could happen to Trump.
I suspect that this one is another bluff by Trump.
Almost certainly.
Like the other 13,765 "lawsuits" that he either never filed or backed out of?
Fair play to Burnham, his backing the Labour candidate on the campaign trail and not throwing his toys out the pram will do him good longer term
If Burnham spends a fair bit of time over the next few weeks campaigning directly alongside the Labour candidate for G&D, thus enthusiastically endorsing her, I reckon Labour could spring a surprise and win it.
It always made sense that he would campaign enthusiastically for her
1) She loses - then he can't be tarred with "Didn't help out. Hoped for failure etc". Instead - "He put his shoulder to the wheel. Did the decent, loyal thing, for the party" 2) She wins - "He helped her across the line. Did the decent, loyal thing, for the party"
Advance have more chance in Denton that Tory or Liberal according to Betfair.
In the 2024 Mayoral election, their candidate came third with 7.6%, beating Reform, Greens and LibDems. He’s got a good bio, an award-winning charity worker. As long as the electorate don’t notice how right wing some of his views are, he could maybe attract a lot of attention, although a short campaign doesn’t help. So, yeah, I think his odds should be long, but still shorter than Con or LD.
We have to put ourselves out there and make fools of ourselves sometimes. So I am predicting a Reform UK victory in Gorton and Denton. This is based on the following facts:
1. Most importantly, neither Labour nor the Greens are the standard-bearer of the left, or the anti-Reform coalition. This is not Caerphilly, Labour are not obviously going to lose the seat, so they will be trying very hard. That can only lead to a split left vote. 2. The Tories are not presenting a serious challenge - their vote won't really trouble Reform. 3. Reform's candidate selection is clever in that Matt Goodwin isn't from the hated Tories 4. The Muslim vote, which is likely to be an anti-Reform block, has no obvious home here, and may be split between Labour, Greens and A.N. Others.
It is also what I would like to happen, so clearly caveats apply.
I agree, in the main. I don't think Goodwin is an asset but he's not fatal. I'm not sure the "Muslim bloc" is really a thing in the way the online right assumes it is; I'd group whatever that limited effect is in with your point 1).
Sure, it may be overstated, in which case yes, it's covered by point one.
I also sense in a couple of the Green moves of late, a lack of killer instinct regarding Labour. Their candidate looks like a good one on paper - she seems nice, with no obviously crazy policies, but in the non-running of Polanski, and a few other statements, it doesn't feel like an obvious win.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
The Mandelson stuff could escalate into a major problem for the government.
Mandy isn't the first Labour figure to be photographed in his keks.
Correct. Anyone who has been to a health farm will be familiar with sights like that of Mandy and someone in a towelling dressing gown. The only peculiarity was the black square over her face which made it appear sinister
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
Genuinely amazed that the reality of parts of the U.K. is not the same as apocryphal non U.K. based posters claim. Uncanny.
I was being a bit ironic. But there's a serious point to this. If you're on the American Right and you want to triumph against your Leftist opponent in, say, New York, what better way of spooking the voters than portraying his Leftist counterpart in London as being a Marxist Islamist autocrat? It's not just people being obtuse; there are cynical political calculations behind all of this disinformation.
I'd take Khan over the kind of council leadership you get in rest of the country. Looking at you, South Ayrshire Council, which has just scrapped a town centre transformation project because a few duffers got upset about losing six car parking spots. Hopefully the £20 million will be withdrawn and allocated to a community that isn't stuck in the mid-1970s.
Your arse , they have fecked Ayr centre already , spending a fortune by making the high street a cycle lane is only for nutters
£20 million would be better spent on a campaign to stop cyclists running red lights and endangering everyone else.
2 collisions in Ayr over the last 26 years where a pedestrian was injured by a cyclist (out of 619 pedestrian casualties, including 17 pedestrians killed by drivers). No drivers were hurt by cyclists - but 275 cyclists were injured.
I'm pretty sanguine about this kind of attitude - I do believe in local democracy, and you’ve got to win the argument. This is near impossible in places like Ayr, and much easier in younger, more aspirational places. Give these councils a chance but don’t look back if they reject it, we’ve got an economy to build and we can’t wait around for them.
Ayr has no out of town shopping centre, Heathfield near Asda is the closest you'll get to one. Far easier for the masses to park there or go to Silverburn/Braehead etc.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
If locals don't want it, its impossible to sell. For bulky goods, shopping centres are far easier.
Places like Glasgow get away with changes as the younger population without access to cars aren't bothered about Argyle Street or Sauchiehall Street being dug up/restricted. But for smaller less affluent towns in the sticks, the High Street as we know it looks doomed
Councils need to accept that the old model doesn't work any more - either retail parks or internet shopping has killed it. People in a town close to where I grew up were upset when the TV shop closed - just ludicrous to expect that to be able to compete (though I concede that NDR is brutal and the likes of Amazon are tax dodging swines).
The only possibility (and it's not guaranteed) is to make High Streets a "location" worth visiting - to wander around, chat with friends, buy some nice stuff, go out to eat. Sacrificing an attempt at that to save 6 car parking spots is just... mad.
I don't think High Street shopping is a particularly ludicrous idea. We have very high rents, the result of a few things, asset price inflation, overinvestment by pension funds in retail property; we have high business rates; we have artificially high energy prices due to Net Zero. If all that were solved, what's wrong with considering physical retail as part of your business?
The problem is accepting that High Streets work, but at much lower levels of taxation and rent. The former is shoving a screwdriver in the ear of every council. The later is doing it to a number of banks and commercial landlords.
On taxation, I have previously suggested that an alternate taxation system, based on profits, for simple businesses might be an idea.
Simple means one limited company, 100% on shore, not buying stock from yourself etc. If you want to run a nest of shell companies, double dutch, international etc, then go for it - but you will pay more tax.
We were discussing, yesterday, Democrat tickets opposing Trump/Vance that I couldn't vote for.
To sum up
Possibles -
- Andrew Jackson/Andrew Johnson - I could vote for them, I think. Less racist than Trump/Vance, experience. More respect for the Supreme Court. Break the Thanatophobic barrier in American politics. - Jefferson F. Davis/Alexander H. Stephens - Hmmm. If you are going to advocate treason and armed insurrection, get pros. Plus less racist than Trump/Vance. Also a breakthrough on Thanatophobia. But very unsound on economics
Just No
- Adolf Hitler/Konstantin Chernenko - on reflection, this is a no. While it's a broad ticket, with a lot of outreach and a bold move for the Democrats, the question of nationality would come up. Another Birther thing... Just no.
Fair play to Burnham, his backing the Labour candidate on the campaign trail and not throwing his toys out the pram will do him good longer term
If Burnham spends a fair bit of time over the next few weeks campaigning directly alongside the Labour candidate for G&D, thus enthusiastically endorsing her, I reckon Labour could spring a surprise and win it.
Good evening
I am marginally on the win for labour
Listening to Polanski this morning I can see the attraction but his policies are as daft as a box of frogs
I am not convinced Goodwin is as good as he thinks he is and Tommy Robinson endorsement says it all
We have to put ourselves out there and make fools of ourselves sometimes. So I am predicting a Reform UK victory in Gorton and Denton. This is based on the following facts:
1. Most importantly, neither Labour nor the Greens are the standard-bearer of the left, or the anti-Reform coalition. This is not Caerphilly, Labour are not obviously going to lose the seat, so they will be trying very hard. That can only lead to a split left vote. 2. The Tories are not presenting a serious challenge - their vote won't really trouble Reform. 3. Reform's candidate selection is clever in that Matt Goodwin isn't from the hated Tories 4. The Muslim vote, which is likely to be an anti-Reform block, has no obvious home here, and may be split between Labour, Greens and A.N. Others.
It is also what I would like to happen, so clearly caveats apply.
1. The left wing or anti-Reform can be somewhat split and Reform still not win. I hazard Reform need a relatively even split to come through the middle. (Or, in other words, Plaid romped home in Caerphilly. The vote could’ve been much less split and Plaid would still have won.) Also, there’s still time for one of Labour or the Greens to come through as the clear left wing/anti-Reform vote. 2. Agreed, although Advance UK might possibly. 3. Goodwin isn’t a Tory, but he doesn’t come across as that likeable, his connection to the constituency isn’t that strong, and there may be skeletons in the cupboard (he claims to be the first in his family to go to university, but his Dad got an MBA and PhD!). 4. The Greens have the endorsement of The Muslim Vote and Salma Yaqoob, and possibly soon of Your Party. They might be well positioned to hoover up any Gaza protest vote, although the Workers Party might be an issue here.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
We have to put ourselves out there and make fools of ourselves sometimes. So I am predicting a Reform UK victory in Gorton and Denton. This is based on the following facts:
1. Most importantly, neither Labour nor the Greens are the standard-bearer of the left, or the anti-Reform coalition. This is not Caerphilly, Labour are not obviously going to lose the seat, so they will be trying very hard. That can only lead to a split left vote. 2. The Tories are not presenting a serious challenge - their vote won't really trouble Reform. 3. Reform's candidate selection is clever in that Matt Goodwin isn't from the hated Tories 4. The Muslim vote, which is likely to be an anti-Reform block, has no obvious home here, and may be split between Labour, Greens and A.N. Others.
It is also what I would like to happen, so clearly caveats apply.
1. The left wing or anti-Reform can be somewhat split and Reform still not win. I hazard Reform need a relatively even split to come through the middle. (Or, in other words, Plaid romped home in Caerphilly. The vote could’ve been much less split and Plaid would still have won.) Also, there’s still time for one of Labour or the Greens to come through as the clear left wing/anti-Reform vote. 2. Agreed, although Advance UK might possibly. 3. Goodwin isn’t a Tory, but he doesn’t come across as that likeable, his connection to the constituency isn’t that strong, and there may be skeletons in the cupboard (he claims to be the first in his family to go to university, but his Dad got an MBA and PhD!). 4. The Greens have the endorsement of The Muslim Vote and Salma Yaqoob, and possibly soon of Your Party. They might be well positioned to hoover up any Gaza protest vote, although the Workers Party might be an issue here.
Legalising class A drugs ! Not sure this is a vote winner .
It would collapse much of the systems of organised crime in the U.K.
yes and all the profits could be used to help the drongos that take drugs instead of wasting millions pretending they can catch the criminals.
Pissing money away on smackheads?
What sort of woke nonsense is this?
I'm quite surprised from Malc on this.
There are massive issues with drug legalisation. The 'Make it legal, tax and regulate it' argument - how is that going to work exactly? The whole point of legalisation is that the state doesn't have the resources to counter the trade in illegal drugs, so how are they suddenly going to have the resources to counter the trade in non-legally sanctioned drugs? Or put another way, why would anyone buy weaker, more expensive, more regulated drugs, in preference to the cheaper, stronger stuff from their dealer? The only way it can work is with massive, expensive enforcement against the illicit drugs trade, and if they can do that, why legalise in the first place?
Drugs are serious now - cannabis is implicated in a vast amount of terrorist and other attacks - it destroys the brain. One cannot legalise it, or even decriminalise it, without a hugely corrosive impact on society. It should be made utterly unacceptable socially, and its use heavily penalised.
Weirdly during the golden age after which the populist right hankers via the medium of old footage of smartly dressed white people strolling down bustling high streets, drugs were largely legal.
In 1910, say, a foreigner could walk off a ship and live in the country their whole life. No papers required.
On their walk from the boat, they could stop off to buy some cocaine, heroin and a quick visit to Messrs Vickers for a machine gun for the back garden.
One of the few restrictions was needing a certificate for mounting *large* guns* on a ship. Otherwise the RN might be rude to you and declare you a potential pirate.
*Your signal cannon was quite OK - say a 4lbr.
1910 there were restrictions on immigration, following the 1905 Aliens Act. 1890 would work.
Anyhoo, my entry for the predictions competition. My usual strategy is to go for the outliers and win like that.
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 23 Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 2 Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 69 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 42 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage (British Polling Council registered pollsters only)? 18% Reform Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 12% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Mark Carney or Angela Rayner (site editor's perk, I can have two answers for this.) Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025)? £111 billion UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025)? 2.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup? Senegal
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
That's why you can only afford 100 pairs of shoes.
Mandelson was selling a project to Epstein. Epstein would tell JP Moron how to leverage the government. Epstein would get banking help - lines of cheap credit? - in return. And Epstein would give Mandelson a piece. Plus, Epstein would pass on where he got the ideas - so Mandelson would be in JP Moron's good books (ha!) as well.
A happy circle of happy people, all helping each other.
I'm sure that Mandelson is proud never to have even visited Ethics.
We have to put ourselves out there and make fools of ourselves sometimes. So I am predicting a Reform UK victory in Gorton and Denton. This is based on the following facts:
1. Most importantly, neither Labour nor the Greens are the standard-bearer of the left, or the anti-Reform coalition. This is not Caerphilly, Labour are not obviously going to lose the seat, so they will be trying very hard. That can only lead to a split left vote. 2. The Tories are not presenting a serious challenge - their vote won't really trouble Reform. 3. Reform's candidate selection is clever in that Matt Goodwin isn't from the hated Tories 4. The Muslim vote, which is likely to be an anti-Reform block, has no obvious home here, and may be split between Labour, Greens and A.N. Others.
It is also what I would like to happen, so clearly caveats apply.
1. The left wing or anti-Reform can be somewhat split and Reform still not win. I hazard Reform need a relatively even split to come through the middle. (Or, in other words, Plaid romped home in Caerphilly. The vote could’ve been much less split and Plaid would still have won.) Also, there’s still time for one of Labour or the Greens to come through as the clear left wing/anti-Reform vote. 2. Agreed, although Advance UK might possibly. 3. Goodwin isn’t a Tory, but he doesn’t come across as that likeable, his connection to the constituency isn’t that strong, and there may be skeletons in the cupboard (he claims to be the first in his family to go to university, but his Dad got an MBA and PhD!). 4. The Greens have the endorsement of The Muslim Vote and Salma Yaqoob, and possibly soon of Your Party. They might be well positioned to hoover up any Gaza protest vote, although the Workers Party might be an issue here.
On 1, I think you can say that if the margin between first and third is less than ten points then that's where Reform's chances of winning are maximised.
I think it's very unlikely that Labour will become the clear standard bearer for the anti-Reform vote. They're an unpopular government. So even if Labour win you'd expect a substantial Green vote.
If the Greens convince the voters that they should be the tactical anti-Reform vote then Labour's vote has every chance of collapsing and the Greens could well romp home with >50% of the vote.
So the key question is how well organised the Greens are, and how quickly they can put a strong by-election campaign together. This is why Labour went for a quick election.
I see the outcome resting almost entirely on this question of the strength of Green Party campaigning organisation. If it were the Lib Dems in their position you'd be very confident of a Lib Dem win. I have no idea where the Greens are at in that respect and that's what I think the result will tell us.
Edit: Unless of course something unexpected happens, like Goodwin proving to be a strong electoral campaigner who wins comfortably with more than 45% of the vote.
We were discussing, yesterday, Democrat tickets opposing Trump/Vance that I couldn't vote for.
To sum up
Possibles -
- Andrew Jackson/Andrew Johnson - I could vote for them, I think. Less racist than Trump/Vance, experience. More respect for the Supreme Court. Break the Thanatophobic barrier in American politics. - Jefferson F. Davis/Alexander H. Stephens - Hmmm. If you are going to advocate treason and armed insurrection, get pros. Plus less racist than Trump/Vance. Also a breakthrough on Thanatophobia. But very unsound on economics
Just No
- Adolf Hitler/Konstantin Chernenko - on reflection, this is a no. While it's a broad ticket, with a lot of outreach and a bold move for the Democrats, the question of nationality would come up. Another Birther thing... Just no.
Anyhoo, my entry for the predictions competition. My usual strategy is to go for the outliers and win like that.
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 23 Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 2 Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 69 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 42 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage (British Polling Council registered pollsters only)? 18% Reform Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 12% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Mark Carney or Angela Rayner (site editor's perk, I can have two answers for this.) Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025)? £111 billion UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025)? 2.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup? Senegal
Most of those are fair enough, but you think Senegal will win the World Cup?
We were discussing, yesterday, Democrat tickets opposing Trump/Vance that I couldn't vote for.
To sum up
Possibles -
- Andrew Jackson/Andrew Johnson - I could vote for them, I think. Less racist than Trump/Vance, experience. More respect for the Supreme Court. Break the Thanatophobic barrier in American politics. - Jefferson F. Davis/Alexander H. Stephens - Hmmm. If you are going to advocate treason and armed insurrection, get pros. Plus less racist than Trump/Vance. Also a breakthrough on Thanatophobia. But very unsound on economics
Just No
- Adolf Hitler/Konstantin Chernenko - on reflection, this is a no. While it's a broad ticket, with a lot of outreach and a bold move for the Democrats, the question of nationality would come up. Another Birther thing... Just no.
Al Sharpton/Anthony Weiner v Trump/Vance?
A man with a titchy dick he displays too much, and opposite him Anthony Weiner?
Anyhoo, my entry for the predictions competition. My usual strategy is to go for the outliers and win like that.
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 23 Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 2 Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 69 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 42 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage (British Polling Council registered pollsters only)? 18% Reform Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 12% Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Mark Carney or Angela Rayner (site editor's perk, I can have two answers for this.) Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025)? £111 billion UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025)? 2.2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup? Senegal
Most of those are fair enough, but you think Senegal will win the World Cup?
You'll be tipping Wales for the Six Nations next!
A European team ain't going to win in the heat, Senegal are AFCON champions.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
That's why you can only afford 100 pairs of shoes.
Mandelson was selling a project to Epstein. Epstein would tell JP Moron how to leverage the government. Epstein would get banking help - lines of cheap credit? - in return. And Epstein would give Mandelson a piece. Plus, Epstein would pass on where he got the ideas - so Mandelson would be in JP Moron's good books (ha!) as well.
A happy circle of happy people, all helping each other.
I'm sure that Mandelson is proud never to have even visited Ethics.
The behaviour of the 0.1%, whether left or right, royalist or republican, hasn’t changed much, since Ancient Rome.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
I've come across this "won't go into Central Manchester" idea. But - and this has just occurred to me - largely from people from working class suburbs. Wythenshawe, Blackley, Middleton. And John Harris reports Denton, which fits the trend. I've never heard it from people from Sale or Altrincham or Chorlton. It's those who are from areas which are already a bit rough who are most fearful. FWIW, I regularly walk through Piccadilly Gardens. And while it's diatinctly unedifying, I've never had any trouble whatsoever.
I met up with an old colleague who mentioned about a cousin of his from Oldham who has refused to go into Central Manchester since the Ariane Grande concert bombing.
Good job they weren't around during the time of the IRA...
We were discussing, yesterday, Democrat tickets opposing Trump/Vance that I couldn't vote for.
To sum up
Possibles -
- Andrew Jackson/Andrew Johnson - I could vote for them, I think. Less racist than Trump/Vance, experience. More respect for the Supreme Court. Break the Thanatophobic barrier in American politics. - Jefferson F. Davis/Alexander H. Stephens - Hmmm. If you are going to advocate treason and armed insurrection, get pros. Plus less racist than Trump/Vance. Also a breakthrough on Thanatophobia. But very unsound on economics
Just No
- Adolf Hitler/Konstantin Chernenko - on reflection, this is a no. While it's a broad ticket, with a lot of outreach and a bold move for the Democrats, the question of nationality would come up. Another Birther thing... Just no.
Al Sharpton/Anthony Weiner v Trump/Vance?
Al Sharpton - damn, that guy knew how to make a deal. Tom Wolf devoted about 500 pages of novel longer than War and Peace to his version of the man. Ol' Sharpie would probably get Putin to give him Moscow in return for some low grade crack. Plus less fraud and criminality than Don Don. Sure, Anthony Weiner is a drag on the ticket.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
That's why you can only afford 100 pairs of shoes.
Mandelson was selling a project to Epstein. Epstein would tell JP Moron how to leverage the government. Epstein would get banking help - lines of cheap credit? - in return. And Epstein would give Mandelson a piece. Plus, Epstein would pass on where he got the ideas - so Mandelson would be in JP Moron's good books (ha!) as well.
A happy circle of happy people, all helping each other.
I'm sure that Mandelson is proud never to have even visited Ethics.
The behaviour of the 0.1%, whether left or right, royalist or republican, hasn’t changed much, since Ancient Rome.
That's outrageous.
Julius Caesar launched foreign wars of conquest and killed by the hundred thousand to make himself rich so that he could take control of the government... no wait.
But, then again, @Roger would still like him - @Cicero said that Ceasar's prose style was perfection.
Telegraph Bitcoin’s entire Trump-era gains have been wiped out after the cryptocurrency was hit by a fresh market sell-off.
The price of Bitcoin dropped sharply over the weekend to around $77,000 (£56,000) as investors fled the notoriously volatile asset.
The losses pushed Bitcoin to its lowest level since last April, when the US president shocked global markets with sweeping tariffs on his so-called “liberation day”.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
That's why you can only afford 100 pairs of shoes.
Mandelson was selling a project to Epstein. Epstein would tell JP Moron how to leverage the government. Epstein would get banking help - lines of cheap credit? - in return. And Epstein would give Mandelson a piece. Plus, Epstein would pass on where he got the ideas - so Mandelson would be in JP Moron's good books (ha!) as well.
A happy circle of happy people, all helping each other.
I'm sure that Mandelson is proud never to have even visited Ethics.
The behaviour of the 0.1%, whether left or right, royalist or republican, hasn’t changed much, since Ancient Rome.
Except now the internet and media gives them greater scrutiny and we use the ballot box and a more just legal system rather than revolutions to control them
If Labour's current unpopularity were explained by policies which are painful in the short term but might be seen to pay off before the next election, that might be true. For instance, if the economy were expected to grow fast in a few years time, rather than being hit by lots more backloaded tax rises, or if millions of new houses were going to appear, rather than housebuilding actually falling, that might give them some hope.
Or if they had a leader with some judgement and charisma.
But I'm not seeing any of that.
So until they get some workable policies, or a much better leader, or ideally both, I think they will struggle to buck the current anti-incumbent trend, and I imagine more than half their current MPs will be looking for new jobs in 2028 or 2029.
This is balanced by the fact that all politics is relative. Assume, as is reasonable, for the moment that by vote numbers, Reform, Tory and Labour are likely to be, in some order, the top three, and WRT seat numbers the LDs can't do much better than now, and could do worse.
All three are really strongly disliked by 60-70% of voters. But these three are going to come top of the poll in terms of votes. One of these three will either form or lead the next government. How the vote turns into seats is going to be very unpredictable. There are no clear indicators at all to exclude any of the three from doing better than the others. Too much time and contingency lies ahead.
in betting terms this means that NOM must be worth a look. In 'most seats' terms it probably means 'buy on the dips'. After the May elections could be a 'dip' time. I wouldn't speculate before then.
Until then, Man U are 40/1 or so for the premiership. DYOR.
We have to put ourselves out there and make fools of ourselves sometimes. So I am predicting a Reform UK victory in Gorton and Denton. This is based on the following facts:
1. Most importantly, neither Labour nor the Greens are the standard-bearer of the left, or the anti-Reform coalition. This is not Caerphilly, Labour are not obviously going to lose the seat, so they will be trying very hard. That can only lead to a split left vote. 2. The Tories are not presenting a serious challenge - their vote won't really trouble Reform. 3. Reform's candidate selection is clever in that Matt Goodwin isn't from the hated Tories 4. The Muslim vote, which is likely to be an anti-Reform block, has no obvious home here, and may be split between Labour, Greens and A.N. Others.
It is also what I would like to happen, so clearly caveats apply.
1. The left wing or anti-Reform can be somewhat split and Reform still not win. I hazard Reform need a relatively even split to come through the middle. (Or, in other words, Plaid romped home in Caerphilly. The vote could’ve been much less split and Plaid would still have won.) Also, there’s still time for one of Labour or the Greens to come through as the clear left wing/anti-Reform vote. 2. Agreed, although Advance UK might possibly. 3. Goodwin isn’t a Tory, but he doesn’t come across as that likeable, his connection to the constituency isn’t that strong, and there may be skeletons in the cupboard (he claims to be the first in his family to go to university, but his Dad got an MBA and PhD!). 4. The Greens have the endorsement of The Muslim Vote and Salma Yaqoob, and possibly soon of Your Party. They might be well positioned to hoover up any Gaza protest vote, although the Workers Party might be an issue here.
'Much' is doing a bit of heavy lifting there.
Labour got 11% in Caerphilly. Double their vote and take it all from Plaid… and Plaid would still have won (narrowly).
What is Reform’s ceiling in G&D? They got 14% last time and can definitely go higher than that, but to what? The 28% of the constituency who are Muslim seem unlikely to vote Reform in any notable numbers, so Reform are only fishing in 72% of the pool. The FON poll is of limited value, but if we take their numbers and add Reform and Tory together, you get 36%. That would be like getting half of the 72%. That sounds like a plausible top end for Reform. If Labour or Green can get 60% of what’s left (so 60% of 64%, which is 38.4%), they win.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
We were discussing, yesterday, Democrat tickets opposing Trump/Vance that I couldn't vote for.
To sum up
Possibles -
- Andrew Jackson/Andrew Johnson - I could vote for them, I think. Less racist than Trump/Vance, experience. More respect for the Supreme Court. Break the Thanatophobic barrier in American politics. - Jefferson F. Davis/Alexander H. Stephens - Hmmm. If you are going to advocate treason and armed insurrection, get pros. Plus less racist than Trump/Vance. Also a breakthrough on Thanatophobia. But very unsound on economics
Just No
- Adolf Hitler/Konstantin Chernenko - on reflection, this is a no. While it's a broad ticket, with a lot of outreach and a bold move for the Democrats, the question of nationality would come up. Another Birther thing... Just no.
Al Sharpton/Anthony Weiner v Trump/Vance?
If Paul Reubens was still with us - this could have been his election calling.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
"Corruption is great - when it works in your favour".
If Labour's current unpopularity were explained by policies which are painful in the short term but might be seen to pay off before the next election, that might be true. For instance, if the economy were expected to grow fast in a few years time, rather than being hit by lots more backloaded tax rises, or if millions of new houses were going to appear, rather than housebuilding actually falling, that might give them some hope.
Or if they had a leader with some judgement and charisma.
But I'm not seeing any of that.
So until they get some workable policies, or a much better leader, or ideally both, I think they will struggle to buck the current anti-incumbent trend, and I imagine more than half their current MPs will be looking for new jobs in 2028 or 2029.
This is balanced by the fact that all politics is relative. Assume, as is reasonable, for the moment that by vote numbers, Reform, Tory and Labour are likely to be, in some order, the top three, and WRT seat numbers the LDs can't do much better than now, and could do worse.
All three are really strongly disliked by 60-70% of voters. But these three are going to come top of the poll in terms of votes. One of these three will either form or lead the next government. How the vote turns into seats is going to be very unpredictable. There are no clear indicators at all to exclude any of the three from doing better than the others. Too much time and contingency lies ahead.
in betting terms this means that NOM must be worth a look. In 'most seats' terms it probably means 'buy on the dips'. After the May elections could be a 'dip' time. I wouldn't speculate before then.
Until then, Man U are 40/1 or so for the premiership. DYOR.
Blimey, it just goes to show how much silly money there is for Man Utd. They are now a shorter price than Aston Villa despite being five points behind Villa. And this is with just 14 games to go.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
If it's anything like here - the council pay to do the area up, new paving, trees, etc. Then the landlords shove the rent up as the area is nicer. But the shops/cafes/etc haven't seen it yet - so close down.
I'm sure on paper those properties are still worth the exorbitant rents though.
We've been spared George sodding Galloway mugging all over Granada Reports for the next few weeks, maybe there is a God. Also I'm absolutely sure that this failure to put up a candidate is in no way related to their current fundraiser yielding about a hundred quid, not the £15k they were seeking.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
And for quite a lot of goods, online shopping is objectively better, even once the tax dodges are factored out. The department store in every moderately-sized town, the sort portrayed in Are You Being Served?, was a glorious thing. But most of them have a mediocre range and high prices. Much the same is true of high street banking; we like the idea, especially for tricky jobs, but online just works better most of the time. Parking charges are a convenient scapegoat, but the key thing is that we now have more retail space than we need in most towns.
"Managed decline" gets a bad rap. Sometimes, managing an inevitable decline, so that the future High Street actually makes sense, is just what's needed.
Weekend classes at L.A. Progressive Shooters are sold out through March. Registrations for permit-to-carry courses at Pink Pistols Twin Cities, which serves LGBTQ people in Minneapolis and St. Paul, are up from an average of five people per class to 25 — the group recently added seven more courses to accommodate increased interest, and those are filling up, too. To paraphrase a recent meme: The right is arguing for gun control, and the left is buying guns.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
It's anti-Nimby, so it will never happen (or possibly get proposed, then pulled).
There'll be another Future High Streets Fund tinkering with some infrastructure funding pots for councils to bid for, as if that is the problem rather than a fundamental shift in the pattern of society.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
That's why you can only afford 100 pairs of shoes.
Mandelson was selling a project to Epstein. Epstein would tell JP Moron how to leverage the government. Epstein would get banking help - lines of cheap credit? - in return. And Epstein would give Mandelson a piece. Plus, Epstein would pass on where he got the ideas - so Mandelson would be in JP Moron's good books (ha!) as well.
A happy circle of happy people, all helping each other.
I'm sure that Mandelson is proud never to have even visited Ethics.
The behaviour of the 0.1%, whether left or right, royalist or republican, hasn’t changed much, since Ancient Rome.
Except now the internet and media gives them greater scrutiny and we use the ballot box and a more just legal system rather than revolutions to control them
It did, until the 0.001% bought up the media and the internet as their personal playthings.
(Yes, the mass media has always been in the hands of the very very well-off. What seems different now is the number of "very"s in that phrase, and the sense that they know that they are burning money to propagate a worldview. The old press barons knew that were there to make profits as well.)
We've been spared George sodding Galloway mugging all over Granada Reports for the next few weeks, maybe there is a God. Also I'm absolutely sure that this failure to put up a candidate is in no way related to their current fundraiser yielding about a hundred quid, not the £15k they were seeking.
We've been spared George sodding Galloway mugging all over Granada Reports for the next few weeks, maybe there is a God. Also I'm absolutely sure that this failure to put up a candidate is in no way related to their current fundraiser yielding about a hundred quid, not the £15k they were seeking.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
We should remember that JP Morgan was at that point paying Tony Blair millions as some sort of 'advisor'.
And around that time Mandelson was spending the summer on the yacht of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska along with George Osborne and one of the Rothschilds.
Oleg Deripaska having previously benefitted from Mandelson's decisions and has been involved in a child sexual exploitation scandal.
We've been spared George sodding Galloway mugging all over Granada Reports for the next few weeks, maybe there is a God. Also I'm absolutely sure that this failure to put up a candidate is in no way related to their current fundraiser yielding about a hundred quid, not the £15k they were seeking.
WPGB scored 10% in 2024, so that makes this more tasty. I see Jezza's YP have already faded to nothingness after raking in a shit load of cash from the terminally dim.
Does the Lab vote totally collapse, or are we heading for 29%/27%/26% and anyone's guess in which order?
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
Every so often I have an ethics/propriety workshop/seminar I have to attend and I have to give three answers on why I shouldn't do something dodgy professionally.
The expected answers are
1) It is the wrong thing to do
2) It would cause damage to the profession/industry and the trust therein
3) There are no victimless crimes, some people will lose out
my answers are
1) It would be a career ender for me and I like earning money
2) I would not do well in prison
3) The scandal would kill my mother, she's the woman who fainted when opened the letter with my first speeding points, as she thought that was a career ender, and the letter threatened some serious consequences (but only if I didn't reply, which she didn't get to.)
Weekend classes at L.A. Progressive Shooters are sold out through March. Registrations for permit-to-carry courses at Pink Pistols Twin Cities, which serves LGBTQ people in Minneapolis and St. Paul, are up from an average of five people per class to 25 — the group recently added seven more courses to accommodate increased interest, and those are filling up, too. To paraphrase a recent meme: The right is arguing for gun control, and the left is buying guns.
1776: Brave, liberal, leftist Continentals against the Evil Right-wing British Empire
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
Every so often I have an ethics/propriety workshop/seminar I have to attend and I have to give three answers on why I shouldn't do something dodgy professionally.
The expected answers are
1) It is the wrong thing to do
2) It would cause damage to the profession/industry and the trust therein
3) There are no victimless crimes, some people will lose out
my answers are
1) It would be a career ender for me and I like earning money
2) I would not do well in prison
3) The scandal would kill my mother, she's the woman who fainted when opened the letter with my first speeding points, as she thought that was a career ender, and the letter threatened some serious consequences (but only if I didn't reply, which she didn't get to.)
Like the time I annoyed a lecturer by answering the question "why do we pay tax?" with " because we go to prison if we don't".
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
If it's anything like here - the council pay to do the area up, new paving, trees, etc. Then the landlords shove the rent up as the area is nicer. But the shops/cafes/etc haven't seen it yet - so close down.
I'm sure on paper those properties are still worth the exorbitant rents though.
That seems to happen anyway. I used to know someone who ran a shop on that street in Greenock, in a rather dilapidated little unit. When they moved in back in 2010 the rent was £900/month. Then it went up to £1200, then £1500 and finally in 2020 the landlord demanded £1800 and a five year lease.
The chap who ran the shop argued that was ridiculous, he was already struggling to pay £1500 and the unit was in such a terrible state - leaking roof, mould on the walls and the aluminium-and-glass shop front moved alarmingly in strong wind - that no new tennant would consider the place without massive and costly repairs. And the whole area was in decline anyway, with numerous empty premises available, even before the impact of the pandemic.
Landlord absolutely would not budge, so the shop guy closed down the business and got a 9-5 job. I passed that unit late last year, it's still empty and when I looked through a gap in shutters it seems like the ceiling has collapsed.
I do wonder what crazy logic makes landlords act that way.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Just think of it as akin to Pascal's wager. Don't be dodgy and any benevolent entity won't make you answer for it.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
If it's anything like here - the council pay to do the area up, new paving, trees, etc. Then the landlords shove the rent up as the area is nicer. But the shops/cafes/etc haven't seen it yet - so close down.
I'm sure on paper those properties are still worth the exorbitant rents though.
That seems to happen anyway. I used to know someone who ran a shop on that street in Greenock, in a rather dilapidated little unit. When they moved in back in 2010 the rent was £900/month. Then it went up to £1200, then £1500 and finally in 2020 the landlord demanded £1800 and a five year lease.
The chap who ran the shop argued that was ridiculous, he was already struggling to pay £1500 and the unit was in such a terrible state - leaking roof, mould on the walls and the aluminium-and-glass shop front moved alarmingly in strong wind - that no new tennant would consider the place without massive and costly repairs. And the whole area was in decline anyway, with numerous empty premises available, even before the impact of the pandemic.
Landlord absolutely would not budge, so the shop guy closed down the business and got a 9-5 job. I passed that unit late last year, it's still empty and when I looked through a gap in shutters it seems like the ceiling has collapsed.
I do wonder what crazy logic makes landlords act that way.
“When you see an American — this photo of an American woman opening the door to her home and on her doorstep finds half a dozen agents, federal agents, in tactical gear that is more tricked out than what I would take outside the wire when I was in Afghanistan, again, on the door of an American porch — I think most people get that is wrong. It is not making us safer.”
Whoever heads the ticket in 2028 he surely has to be on it. By far the most articulate politico in the US right now.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
What you've said for Greenock applies to so many towns right across the west of Scotland - theres a real divide in afffluence between areas of growing population around Edinburgh and areas like Inverclyde and D & G. And no, I don't think the lack of cycle lanes or trees surrounded by slabs is the big problem, nice as they may look.
You can hardly blame people for shopping online when its cheaper. You can even get goods carted to your door for less price than it takes you to go downtown and buy from a shop.
Long term, not sure what the solution is, other than more housing in high streets. It's just going to take some Councils a wee while yet before they figure it all out. The UK government levelling up cash needs to be targeted much better than some examples I've seen
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
If it's anything like here - the council pay to do the area up, new paving, trees, etc. Then the landlords shove the rent up as the area is nicer. But the shops/cafes/etc haven't seen it yet - so close down.
I'm sure on paper those properties are still worth the exorbitant rents though.
That seems to happen anyway. I used to know someone who ran a shop on that street in Greenock, in a rather dilapidated little unit. When they moved in back in 2010 the rent was £900/month. Then it went up to £1200, then £1500 and finally in 2020 the landlord demanded £1800 and a five year lease.
The chap who ran the shop argued that was ridiculous, he was already struggling to pay £1500 and the unit was in such a terrible state - leaking roof, mould on the walls and the aluminium-and-glass shop front moved alarmingly in strong wind - that no new tennant would consider the place without massive and costly repairs. And the whole area was in decline anyway, with numerous empty premises available, even before the impact of the pandemic.
Landlord absolutely would not budge, so the shop guy closed down the business and got a 9-5 job. I passed that unit late last year, it's still empty and when I looked through a gap in shutters it seems like the ceiling has collapsed.
I do wonder what crazy logic makes landlords act that way.
Greed.
And/or capitalism.
Landlord has/had a loan from the bank that specifies he can never reduce the rent on the property the loan is against? Not uncommon.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
On the other hand, a few cafe, dry cleaners etc are a useful thing. But that requires not driving them out with insane rents and taxes.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
It's the never ending supply of charity shops, who are exempted something like 80% of their business rates and who increasingly exist as adjuncts of the state who funnel them money for the "services" that they provide that irritate me. Vaping shops, with their colourful goods designed to attract children, are indeed another blight.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
Have to say Canary Wharf was incredibly busy this afternoon and what a success story it has been. When I moved to East London 20 years ago, no one got ON the tube in the morning at Canary Wharf - everyone got off the tube to go to work and the place was a ghost town at the weekends.
Today, it's entirely different - a lot of people in or near Canary Wharf and the whole place is busy and bustling all week not just when the office workers are in.
There's a concept called "Place" which means you live, work and relax in the same general area. We need to convert our High Streets to "places" where people can live, work and relax - that means allowing start-ups to take space in former retail premises as well as having more residential space and recreational facilities including bars, cafes and restaurants.
This is the antithesis of the 20th century where you lived in one place, commuted to another for work and drove to a third for recreation. It's anti-suburban if you like but it needs a different mindset - it's more akin to how we used to live (as well as being more environmentally sustainable).
“When you see an American — this photo of an American woman opening the door to her home and on her doorstep finds half a dozen agents, federal agents, in tactical gear that is more tricked out than what I would take outside the wire when I was in Afghanistan, again, on the door of an American porch — I think most people get that is wrong. It is not making us safer.”
Whoever heads the ticket in 2028 he surely has to be on it. By far the most articulate politico in the US right now.
Articulate possibly.
A liar certainly.
There are few people as responsible for Biden's second term attempt as Pete Buttigieg.
We've been spared George sodding Galloway mugging all over Granada Reports for the next few weeks, maybe there is a God. Also I'm absolutely sure that this failure to put up a candidate is in no way related to their current fundraiser yielding about a hundred quid, not the £15k they were seeking.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
What you've said for Greenock applies to so many towns right across the west of Scotland - theres a real divide in afffluence between areas of growing population around Edinburgh and areas like Inverclyde and D & G. And no, I don't think the lack of cycle lanes or trees surrounded by slabs is the big problem, nice as they may look.
You can hardly blame people for shopping online when its cheaper. You can even get goods carted to your door for less price than it takes you to go downtown and buy from a shop.
Long term, not sure what the solution is, other than more housing in high streets. It's just going to take some Councils a wee while yet before they figure it all out. The UK government levelling up cash needs to be targeted much better than some examples I've seen
The problems with High Streets are not really things that a general tarting up of the public spaces can solve.
BREAKING: The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti are identified in government records as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
It’s a real advantage in life, not to possess a conscience.
Absolutely nothing confirmed and currently zero on the mainstream TV channels. But news of multiple bombings targeting IRGC strongholds is flooding in on the Telegram channels. At the risk of sounding like Gillette soccer Saturday, these are the cities:
Bandar Abbas Ahvaz Khorramshahr Abadan Qasr-e Shirin Parand Qeshm Dezful Reports of explosions in places like Qeshm and at the Qom Governor's Office building.
Just to cover my tracks currently waiting for Chris Kamara to verify.
So what sparked the recent unrest in Iran? Could it have been foreign interference? My Dad has these books in his office room I read when I was small, where, before Sov Bloc attacked Mega City One, they sowed chaos and lawlessness in Mega City One, to soften it up and it take its eye off what they were up to.
Well, the regime is only in place because (a) they don't allow opponents to stand in elections, and (b) they have a highly efficient security service that tortures and kills opponents. (Come to mention it, that sounds a bit like Russia too.)
Add to which, over the past 20 years, Iranians have gotten poorer and even less free.
The proximate cause of unrest is the fact that oil prices have come down, the regime was weakened by US strikes, and sanctions are biting. There have also been a lot of protests in recent years -such as the one over the killing of the girl by the religious police- so the anger (particularly in urban Iran) is palpable.
And at some point resisting the regime becomes less painful than sticking with it.
Yes. But my hypothesis is a really smart way to do these things though, and some of the things you mentioned could be the actual reasons and support my hypothesis at the same time.
Truth is always the first casualty of a Cold War. For example, 1st February 2026 not a single PBer will claim the CIA never actually bought Pollocks at exorbitant prices - but during Cold War many would be sceptical even dismissive here.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
It's the never ending supply of charity shops, who are exempted something like 80% of their business rates and who increasingly exist as adjuncts of the state who funnel them money for the "services" that they provide that irritate me. Vaping shops, with their colourful goods designed to attract children, are indeed another blight.
I wouldn't mind charity shops if they each concentrated on one thing - one for books, one for men's clothes, one for women's clothes, one for furniture etc.
Currently its not worth the time and effort to go in any as there's not a critical mass of whatever I might be interested in.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
If it's anything like here - the council pay to do the area up, new paving, trees, etc. Then the landlords shove the rent up as the area is nicer. But the shops/cafes/etc haven't seen it yet - so close down.
I'm sure on paper those properties are still worth the exorbitant rents though.
That seems to happen anyway. I used to know someone who ran a shop on that street in Greenock, in a rather dilapidated little unit. When they moved in back in 2010 the rent was £900/month. Then it went up to £1200, then £1500 and finally in 2020 the landlord demanded £1800 and a five year lease.
The chap who ran the shop argued that was ridiculous, he was already struggling to pay £1500 and the unit was in such a terrible state - leaking roof, mould on the walls and the aluminium-and-glass shop front moved alarmingly in strong wind - that no new tennant would consider the place without massive and costly repairs. And the whole area was in decline anyway, with numerous empty premises available, even before the impact of the pandemic.
Landlord absolutely would not budge, so the shop guy closed down the business and got a 9-5 job. I passed that unit late last year, it's still empty and when I looked through a gap in shutters it seems like the ceiling has collapsed.
I do wonder what crazy logic makes landlords act that way.
They do it because their property portfolios are overvalued and they don't want to acknowledge that they're actually worth millions less than their nominal value.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
It's the never ending supply of charity shops, who are exempted something like 80% of their business rates and who increasingly exist as adjuncts of the state who funnel them money for the "services" that they provide that irritate me. Vaping shops, with their colourful goods designed to attract children, are indeed another blight.
Charity shops near me include…
Cancer Research UK: god forbid we cure cancer! I’m not aware of CRUK taking any money from the state.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
Every so often I have an ethics/propriety workshop/seminar I have to attend and I have to give three answers on why I shouldn't do something dodgy professionally.
The expected answers are
1) It is the wrong thing to do
2) It would cause damage to the profession/industry and the trust therein
3) There are no victimless crimes, some people will lose out
my answers are
1) It would be a career ender for me and I like earning money
2) I would not do well in prison
3) The scandal would kill my mother, she's the woman who fainted when opened the letter with my first speeding points, as she thought that was a career ender, and the letter threatened some serious consequences (but only if I didn't reply, which she didn't get to.)
Hurting those one cares about is key, I think.
There are times when I’ve contemplated doing bad things, but then I realise that the remembrance of them, would make my blood run cold, in the small hours.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
It’s a real advantage in life, not to possess a conscience.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
It's the never ending supply of charity shops, who are exempted something like 80% of their business rates and who increasingly exist as adjuncts of the state who funnel them money for the "services" that they provide that irritate me. Vaping shops, with their colourful goods designed to attract children, are indeed another blight.
I wouldn't mind charity shops if they each concentrated on one thing - one for books, one for men's clothes, one for women's clothes, one for furniture etc.
Currently its not worth the time and effort to go in any as there's not a critical mass of whatever I might be interested in.
My problem with charity shops is that these days they look everything up on ebay and shove a ludicrous price on them. I recently saw a biography of Jean Monnet I was interested in. They wanted £30 for it as it was a first edition. There can't be anyone else for 20 miles that would be interested in it.
“When you see an American — this photo of an American woman opening the door to her home and on her doorstep finds half a dozen agents, federal agents, in tactical gear that is more tricked out than what I would take outside the wire when I was in Afghanistan, again, on the door of an American porch — I think most people get that is wrong. It is not making us safer.”
Whoever heads the ticket in 2028 he surely has to be on it. By far the most articulate politico in the US right now.
Articulate possibly.
A liar certainly.
There are few people as responsible for Biden's second term attempt as Pete Buttigieg.
I don't think that he was doing the lying but it was a bad judgment call, certainly. Probably cost them the election and cost the rest of us 4 years of a complete mad man.
BREAKING: The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti are identified in government records as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
And for quite a lot of goods, online shopping is objectively better, even once the tax dodges are factored out. The department store in every moderately-sized town, the sort portrayed in Are You Being Served?, was a glorious thing. But most of them have a mediocre range and high prices. Much the same is true of high street banking; we like the idea, especially for tricky jobs, but online just works better most of the time. Parking charges are a convenient scapegoat, but the key thing is that we now have more retail space than we need in most towns.
"Managed decline" gets a bad rap. Sometimes, managing an inevitable decline, so that the future High Street actually makes sense, is just what's needed.
I am an extreme non shopper with the single exception of food shopping, which I don't delegate to anyone. Which means that I almost never enter a non food shop. I agree of course that this is sociopathic, destructive and horrible but there it is. If I want a roll of sellotape I can either drive a total of 12 miles and probably but not certainly get it (small town retail can be a bit random), or I can click a button and it arrives the following day.
It is not impossible that the choice I make - saving my journey - is more efficient and kinder on the ecosphere.
What amazes me is how much gargantuan retail still exists. As one who almost never uses it, it seems grotesquely dominant. Whole cities are full of retail outlets selling complete junk to each other, while the stuff I would quite like - like bank branches or a local HMRC office where I can ask a human a question have vanished.
A branch of retail sadly vanished but which used to exist is men's outfitters dedicated mostly to the interests of older unfashionable men who hate clothes, looking smart, buying things and shopping. The nearest thing is an outfit called Amazon who deliver.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
It's the never ending supply of charity shops, who are exempted something like 80% of their business rates and who increasingly exist as adjuncts of the state who funnel them money for the "services" that they provide that irritate me. Vaping shops, with their colourful goods designed to attract children, are indeed another blight.
I wouldn't mind charity shops if they each concentrated on one thing - one for books, one for men's clothes, one for women's clothes, one for furniture etc.
Currently its not worth the time and effort to go in any as there's not a critical mass of whatever I might be interested in.
Loros (our local Hospice) has separate shops for furniture, books, and and another one for music. I often browse their vinyl and DVDs. Excellent value and a good cause, though I think there would be a lot less demand for Euthanasia if we had better government funding for hospices.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
Have to say Canary Wharf was incredibly busy this afternoon and what a success story it has been. When I moved to East London 20 years ago, no one got ON the tube in the morning at Canary Wharf - everyone got off the tube to go to work and the place was a ghost town at the weekends.
Today, it's entirely different - a lot of people in or near Canary Wharf and the whole place is busy and bustling all week not just when the office workers are in.
There's a concept called "Place" which means you live, work and relax in the same general area. We need to convert our High Streets to "places" where people can live, work and relax - that means allowing start-ups to take space in former retail premises as well as having more residential space and recreational facilities including bars, cafes and restaurants.
This is the antithesis of the 20th century where you lived in one place, commuted to another for work and drove to a third for recreation. It's anti-suburban if you like but it needs a different mindset - it's more akin to how we used to live (as well as being more environmentally sustainable).
Certainly its an attractive model for those who want and whose lives enable such a thing.
Although any attempts to impose it, either formally or informally, comes with costs to both the economy and to individual freedom.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
Every so often I have an ethics/propriety workshop/seminar I have to attend and I have to give three answers on why I shouldn't do something dodgy professionally.
The expected answers are
1) It is the wrong thing to do
2) It would cause damage to the profession/industry and the trust therein
3) There are no victimless crimes, some people will lose out
my answers are
1) It would be a career ender for me and I like earning money
2) I would not do well in prison
3) The scandal would kill my mother, she's the woman who fainted when opened the letter with my first speeding points, as she thought that was a career ender, and the letter threatened some serious consequences (but only if I didn't reply, which she didn't get to.)
Hurting those one cares about is key, I think.
There are times when I’ve contemplated doing bad things, but then I realise that the remembrance of them, would make my blood run cold, in the small hours.
I am friends with somebody who spent time behind bars because of some stupidity he did in his younger years that was non violent/non sexual, his parents are good people who have never been in trouble.
He said the most difficult thing was seeing the faces of his parents when they first visited him.
I think they visited him about 10 days after he was sentenced so he was still in a Category A prison waiting to be sent to an open prison.
When he found out the checks they perform on visitors to Cat A prisons and people they had sit with in the waiting room he contemplated suicide.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
What you've said for Greenock applies to so many towns right across the west of Scotland - theres a real divide in afffluence between areas of growing population around Edinburgh and areas like Inverclyde and D & G. And no, I don't think the lack of cycle lanes or trees surrounded by slabs is the big problem, nice as they may look.
You can hardly blame people for shopping online when its cheaper. You can even get goods carted to your door for less price than it takes you to go downtown and buy from a shop.
Long term, not sure what the solution is, other than more housing in high streets. It's just going to take some Councils a wee while yet before they figure it all out. The UK government levelling up cash needs to be targeted much better than some examples I've seen
Drastic measures are needed to unblock the greedy landlord / property fund / bank rental logjam. I would give local authorities the legal right to set a fair rent for the property, overriding existing rent agreements. If property is classed as an investment, it should be an investment that can fall, not just rise in value.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
Every so often I have an ethics/propriety workshop/seminar I have to attend and I have to give three answers on why I shouldn't do something dodgy professionally.
The expected answers are
1) It is the wrong thing to do
2) It would cause damage to the profession/industry and the trust therein
3) There are no victimless crimes, some people will lose out
my answers are
1) It would be a career ender for me and I like earning money
2) I would not do well in prison
3) The scandal would kill my mother, she's the woman who fainted when opened the letter with my first speeding points, as she thought that was a career ender, and the letter threatened some serious consequences (but only if I didn't reply, which she didn't get to.)
I don't think any of your answers, certainly not the first, applied to Mandelson.
It looks like Mandelson was in constant communication with Epstein in the aftermath of the 2010 election and was looking to see how best to position himself for a job with JP Morgan.
Councils are caught in a trap where councillors think they can rewind the clock 20 plus years and go back to thriving High streets pre Internet. Sadly this is unlikely to happen.
In Greenock, which I unfortunately have to visit occasionally, the main shopping street ended up in a terrible state. About half of the shops closed, with much of the rest being bookies (5 of them), shady 'slots' places, charity shops and dodgy Turkish barbers.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
What you've said for Greenock applies to so many towns right across the west of Scotland - theres a real divide in afffluence between areas of growing population around Edinburgh and areas like Inverclyde and D & G. And no, I don't think the lack of cycle lanes or trees surrounded by slabs is the big problem, nice as they may look.
You can hardly blame people for shopping online when its cheaper. You can even get goods carted to your door for less price than it takes you to go downtown and buy from a shop.
Long term, not sure what the solution is, other than more housing in high streets. It's just going to take some Councils a wee while yet before they figure it all out. The UK government levelling up cash needs to be targeted much better than some examples I've seen
The problems with High Streets are not really things that a general tarting up of the public spaces can solve.
Quite so, but it is something that is simple to do - just get a funding pot together for it - and produces tangible if uneven results - updated street scene - so of course Whitehall and Westminster gravitate towards it.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
Have to say Canary Wharf was incredibly busy this afternoon and what a success story it has been. When I moved to East London 20 years ago, no one got ON the tube in the morning at Canary Wharf - everyone got off the tube to go to work and the place was a ghost town at the weekends.
Today, it's entirely different - a lot of people in or near Canary Wharf and the whole place is busy and bustling all week not just when the office workers are in.
There's a concept called "Place" which means you live, work and relax in the same general area. We need to convert our High Streets to "places" where people can live, work and relax - that means allowing start-ups to take space in former retail premises as well as having more residential space and recreational facilities including bars, cafes and restaurants.
This is the antithesis of the 20th century where you lived in one place, commuted to another for work and drove to a third for recreation. It's anti-suburban if you like but it needs a different mindset - it's more akin to how we used to live (as well as being more environmentally sustainable).
Certainly its an attractive model for those who want and whose lives enable such a thing.
Although any attempts to impose it, either formally or informally, comes with costs to both the economy and to individual freedom.
I'm NOT suggesting it's a model to be imposed unlike the 20th century model which was imposed by the clearance of slums and the building of vast new suburban estates and the coming of supermarkets and out of town retail which forced car ownership on families and did much to kill off the pre-existing High Street.
That's the thing with coercion or forced choice - when the Government does it, it's bad, when the market does it, it's good?
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
It’s a real advantage in life, not to possess a conscience.
OTOH I could provide a list of people who appear not to have a conscience with whom I can safely presume most PBers would not want to swap lives. Or be in the same room, county, country or planet. I have met a few over the years. I prefer not to think about them. And if I am guessing rightly there are a few popping up in the news quite a bit, almost at epidemic proportions. As I say, I prefer not to think about them. Those who think differently might like to run through 3,000,000 pages of the Epstein files.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
It's the never ending supply of charity shops, who are exempted something like 80% of their business rates and who increasingly exist as adjuncts of the state who funnel them money for the "services" that they provide that irritate me. Vaping shops, with their colourful goods designed to attract children, are indeed another blight.
I wouldn't mind charity shops if they each concentrated on one thing - one for books, one for men's clothes, one for women's clothes, one for furniture etc.
Currently its not worth the time and effort to go in any as there's not a critical mass of whatever I might be interested in.
My problem with charity shops is that these days they look everything up on ebay and shove a ludicrous price on them. I recently saw a biography of Jean Monnet I was interested in. They wanted £30 for it as it was a first edition. There can't be anyone else for 20 miles that would be interested in it.
On the decline of high streets, I sense a degree of hypocrisy in the zeitgeist, as in:
It's a bloody disgrace. Our high street is collapsing before our very eyes. Shops are closing all the time. Something should be done. Mind you, personally I've bought everything I need from Amazon and Asda home delivery for the last 10 years, so couldn't be arsed to go to the high street anyway.
Trying to return it to what it once was is a fool's game. I don't think everywhere which used to have a viable high street will get one back no matter the policy pronouncements, and our expectations need to change about what they can offer and how many places even have one worthy of the name.
What we need in our High Streets is a lot more people and the obvious way to achieve that is to have them live there by converting a lot of the unused retail space into housing. Once enough people live in our town centres again local shops, restaurants and cafes will thrive making them more attractive place to go.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
Its not just unused retail space which needs converting but much of the used retail space as well.
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
It's the never ending supply of charity shops, who are exempted something like 80% of their business rates and who increasingly exist as adjuncts of the state who funnel them money for the "services" that they provide that irritate me. Vaping shops, with their colourful goods designed to attract children, are indeed another blight.
I wouldn't mind charity shops if they each concentrated on one thing - one for books, one for men's clothes, one for women's clothes, one for furniture etc.
Currently its not worth the time and effort to go in any as there's not a critical mass of whatever I might be interested in.
My problem with charity shops is that these days they look everything up on ebay and shove a ludicrous price on them. I recently saw a biography of Jean Monnet I was interested in. They wanted £30 for it as it was a first edition. There can't be anyone else for 20 miles that would be interested in it.
If you look on Abe Books, a lot of Charity Bookshops do sell online too, at least for more unusual books.
I have a couple of dozen Penguin African Library* series, several of which came from charity shops online.
*a bit of a niche interest, but I find that original works on the heady early days of independence movements in Africa give a very interesting contrast to contemporary works. There's always something interesting about predictions of the future which go wrong.
“When you see an American — this photo of an American woman opening the door to her home and on her doorstep finds half a dozen agents, federal agents, in tactical gear that is more tricked out than what I would take outside the wire when I was in Afghanistan, again, on the door of an American porch — I think most people get that is wrong. It is not making us safer.”
Whoever heads the ticket in 2028 he surely has to be on it. By far the most articulate politico in the US right now.
Articulate possibly.
A liar certainly.
There are few people as responsible for Biden's second term attempt as Pete Buttigieg.
I don't think that he was doing the lying but it was a bad judgment call, certainly. Probably cost them the election and cost the rest of us 4 years of a complete mad man.
Lying or judgement, its just semantics.
Ultimately Biden's cabinet, certainly collectively and probably individually, could have forced him not to seek a second term.
Yet they all acquiesced in the stupidity, all accepted that it could end in disaster.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
It’s a real advantage in life, not to possess a conscience.
I am not convinced that it is.
It all depends on what you want out of life of course.
Just think about what you would want in your eulogy.
BREAKING: The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti are identified in government records as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez.
As business secretary Peter Mandelson conspired with leading US bank to end tax on bankers' bonuses. He told Epstein that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon should “threaten” chancellor Alistair Darling over the tax. A year later, Mandy was seeking work with JPMorgan.
After the 2010 election Mandelson wanted a job with JP Morgan & wrote this to Epstein: "“My aim is to acquire enough knowledge and networks in time to participate in real deals. I do not want to live by salary alone."
Unlike the overwhelming majority of us who do have to. Labour: the party of the workers.
Why was Epstein bothered by the bankers' bonus tax? He was not affected. Why was he even involved? UK banks were well able to lobby the government without needing the assistance of a man convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in 2008.
So who really was helping who? Was this Mandelson trying to show Epstein that he could get a result so that Epstein would recommend him to his mate Jes Staley at JP Morgan?
The whole affair stinks.
You wonder what Peter Mandelson thought about the ethics and propriety training all ministers are expected attend to and adhere to?
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
Personally I blame my mother all the time for raising me not to be a ruthless sociopath, it has really closed off some doors for me.
It’s a real advantage in life, not to possess a conscience.
I am not convinced that it is.
It all depends on what you want out of life of course.
Just think about what you would want in your eulogy.
I don't genuinely think it is an advantage in life to not possess a conscience, or it would be a lot more prevalent, though there are certain situations where ruthlessness and lack of empathy or self doubt are definite advantages, just as other situations benefit from a different approach.
Comments
1) She loses - then he can't be tarred with "Didn't help out. Hoped for failure etc". Instead - "He put his shoulder to the wheel. Did the decent, loyal thing, for the party"
2) She wins - "He helped her across the line. Did the decent, loyal thing, for the party"
I also sense in a couple of the Green moves of late, a lack of killer instinct regarding Labour. Their candidate looks like a good one on paper - she seems nice, with no obviously crazy policies, but in the non-running of Polanski, and a few other statements, it doesn't feel like an obvious win.
To sum up
Possibles -
- Andrew Jackson/Andrew Johnson - I could vote for them, I think. Less racist than Trump/Vance, experience. More respect for the Supreme Court. Break the Thanatophobic barrier in American politics.
- Jefferson F. Davis/Alexander H. Stephens - Hmmm. If you are going to advocate treason and armed insurrection, get pros. Plus less racist than Trump/Vance. Also a breakthrough on Thanatophobia. But very unsound on economics
Just No
- Adolf Hitler/Konstantin Chernenko - on reflection, this is a no. While it's a broad ticket, with a lot of outreach and a bold move for the Democrats, the question of nationality would come up. Another Birther thing... Just no.
I am marginally on the win for labour
Listening to Polanski this morning I can see the attraction but his policies are as daft as a box of frogs
I am not convinced Goodwin is as good as he thinks he is and Tommy Robinson endorsement says it all
Anyway not long to wait
2. Agreed, although Advance UK might possibly.
3. Goodwin isn’t a Tory, but he doesn’t come across as that likeable, his connection to the constituency isn’t that strong, and there may be skeletons in the cupboard (he claims to be the first in his family to go to university, but his Dad got an MBA and PhD!).
4. The Greens have the endorsement of The Muslim Vote and Salma Yaqoob, and possibly soon of Your Party. They might be well positioned to hoover up any Gaza protest vote, although the Workers Party might be an issue here.
I feel quite a fool that my entire career I've studiously avoided conflicts of interest that would have benefitted me.
The Council pulled together funding from various bodies to renovate the area. Lots of nice paving, new trees, benches, etc.
Result? Nada. No new shops have opened, the existing ones still struggle and pedestrian traffic is no higher than before. The big retail park a few miles away in Port Glasgow has hoovered up all the business and some slabs and trees-inna-box isn't going to change that.
At least they do seem to have now accepted the days of a bustling high street are gone. The rest of the town centre is being redeveloped with UK government funds, which involves demolishing half of the run down shopping mall to make way for new housing.
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 23
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 2
Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 69
Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 42
UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage (British Polling Council registered pollsters only)? 18% Reform
Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 12%
Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10
The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Mark Carney or Angela Rayner (site editor's perk, I can have two answers for this.)
Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No
UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025)? £111 billion
UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025)? 2.2%
Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup? Senegal
Mandelson was selling a project to Epstein. Epstein would tell JP Moron how to leverage the government. Epstein would get banking help - lines of cheap credit? - in return. And Epstein would give Mandelson a piece. Plus, Epstein would pass on where he got the ideas - so Mandelson would be in JP Moron's good books (ha!) as well.
A happy circle of happy people, all helping each other.
I'm sure that Mandelson is proud never to have even visited Ethics.
I think it's very unlikely that Labour will become the clear standard bearer for the anti-Reform vote. They're an unpopular government. So even if Labour win you'd expect a substantial Green vote.
If the Greens convince the voters that they should be the tactical anti-Reform vote then Labour's vote has every chance of collapsing and the Greens could well romp home with >50% of the vote.
So the key question is how well organised the Greens are, and how quickly they can put a strong by-election campaign together. This is why Labour went for a quick election.
I see the outcome resting almost entirely on this question of the strength of Green Party campaigning organisation. If it were the Lib Dems in their position you'd be very confident of a Lib Dem win. I have no idea where the Greens are at in that respect and that's what I think the result will tell us.
Edit: Unless of course something unexpected happens, like Goodwin proving to be a strong electoral campaigner who wins comfortably with more than 45% of the vote.
You'll be tipping Wales for the Six Nations next!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/38068112/jeremy-clarkson-reform-nigel-farage-win/
But overall, I would vote for them.
Julius Caesar launched foreign wars of conquest and killed by the hundred thousand to make himself rich so that he could take control of the government... no wait.
But, then again, @Roger would still like him - @Cicero said that Ceasar's prose style was perfection.
Bitcoin’s entire Trump-era gains have been wiped out after the cryptocurrency was hit by a fresh market sell-off.
The price of Bitcoin dropped sharply over the weekend to around $77,000 (£56,000) as investors fled the notoriously volatile asset.
The losses pushed Bitcoin to its lowest level since last April, when the US president shocked global markets with sweeping tariffs on his so-called “liberation day”.
All three are really strongly disliked by 60-70% of voters. But these three are going to come top of the poll in terms of votes. One of these three will either form or lead the next government. How the vote turns into seats is going to be very unpredictable. There are no clear indicators at all to exclude any of the three from doing better than the others. Too much time and contingency lies ahead.
in betting terms this means that NOM must be worth a look. In 'most seats' terms it probably means 'buy on the dips'. After the May elections could be a 'dip' time. I wouldn't speculate before then.
Until then, Man U are 40/1 or so for the premiership. DYOR.
What is Reform’s ceiling in G&D? They got 14% last time and can definitely go higher than that, but to what? The 28% of the constituency who are Muslim seem unlikely to vote Reform in any notable numbers, so Reform are only fishing in 72% of the pool. The FON poll is of limited value, but if we take their numbers and add Reform and Tory together, you get 36%. That would be like getting half of the 72%. That sounds like a plausible top end for Reform. If Labour or Green can get 60% of what’s left (so 60% of 64%, which is 38.4%), they win.
What is needed is changes to the General Development Order so that there is an almost irrebuttable presumption in favour of change of use and a removal of conditions about parking and the like so that the alterations are commercially viable. Its really not complicated.
I'm sure on paper those properties are still worth the exorbitant rents though.
https://x.com/WorkersPartyGB/status/2018048150808760748?s=20
"Managed decline" gets a bad rap. Sometimes, managing an inevitable decline, so that the future High Street actually makes sense, is just what's needed.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/01/us/gun-rights-politics-alex-pretti-killing-cec
Weekend classes at L.A. Progressive Shooters are sold out through March. Registrations for permit-to-carry courses at Pink Pistols Twin Cities, which serves LGBTQ people in Minneapolis and St. Paul, are up from an average of five people per class to 25 — the group recently added seven more courses to accommodate increased interest, and those are filling up, too. To paraphrase a recent meme: The right is arguing for gun control, and the left is buying guns.
There'll be another Future High Streets Fund tinkering with some infrastructure funding pots for councils to bid for, as if that is the problem rather than a fundamental shift in the pattern of society.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2018065641517855205?s=20
(Yes, the mass media has always been in the hands of the very very well-off. What seems different now is the number of "very"s in that phrase, and the sense that they know that they are burning money to propagate a worldview. The old press barons knew that were there to make profits as well.)
Some easy jibes, but a pretty good letter for its purpose.
And around that time Mandelson was spending the summer on the yacht of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska along with George Osborne and one of the Rothschilds.
Oleg Deripaska having previously benefitted from Mandelson's decisions and has been involved in a child sexual exploitation scandal.
Does the Lab vote totally collapse, or are we heading for 29%/27%/26% and anyone's guess in which order?
The expected answers are
1) It is the wrong thing to do
2) It would cause damage to the profession/industry and the trust therein
3) There are no victimless crimes, some people will lose out
my answers are
1) It would be a career ender for me and I like earning money
2) I would not do well in prison
3) The scandal would kill my mother, she's the woman who fainted when opened the letter with my first speeding points, as she thought that was a career ender, and the letter threatened some serious consequences (but only if I didn't reply, which she didn't get to.)
The chap who ran the shop argued that was ridiculous, he was already struggling to pay £1500 and the unit was in such a terrible state - leaking roof, mould on the walls and the aluminium-and-glass shop front moved alarmingly in strong wind - that no new tennant would consider the place without massive and costly repairs. And the whole area was in decline anyway, with numerous empty premises available, even before the impact of the pandemic.
Landlord absolutely would not budge, so the shop guy closed down the business and got a 9-5 job. I passed that unit late last year, it's still empty and when I looked through a gap in shutters it seems like the ceiling has collapsed.
I do wonder what crazy logic makes landlords act that way.
And/or capitalism.
“When you see an American — this photo of an American woman opening the door to her home and on her doorstep finds half a dozen agents, federal agents, in tactical gear that is more tricked out than what I would take outside the wire when I was in Afghanistan, again, on the door of an American porch — I think most people get that is wrong. It is not making us safer.”
Whoever heads the ticket in 2028 he surely has to be on it. By far the most articulate politico in the US right now.
You can hardly blame people for shopping online when its cheaper. You can even get goods carted to your door for less price than it takes you to go downtown and buy from a shop.
Long term, not sure what the solution is, other than more housing in high streets. It's just going to take some Councils a wee while yet before they figure it all out. The UK government levelling up cash needs to be targeted much better than some examples I've seen
Quality of shops is as important as quantity of shops and the former locations of M&S, HoF and Debenhams becoming what look like third world jumble sales is not an improvement.
Various vape shops, convenience stores, cafes which never have any customers and sundry other shops which don't seem to have a purpose would also be better used for residential purposes.
Today, it's entirely different - a lot of people in or near Canary Wharf and the whole place is busy and bustling all week not just when the office workers are in.
There's a concept called "Place" which means you live, work and relax in the same general area. We need to convert our High Streets to "places" where people can live, work and relax - that means allowing start-ups to take space in former retail premises as well as having more residential space and recreational facilities including bars, cafes and restaurants.
This is the antithesis of the 20th century where you lived in one place, commuted to another for work and drove to a third for recreation. It's anti-suburban if you like but it needs a different mindset - it's more akin to how we used to live (as well as being more environmentally sustainable).
A liar certainly.
There are few people as responsible for Biden's second term attempt as Pete Buttigieg.
Will Hannah be the first plumber in Parliament? I think there are others who are plastered.
BREAKING: The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti are identified in government records as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez.
https://bsky.app/profile/propublica.org/post/3mdtal4krxc2n
Truth is always the first casualty of a Cold War. For example, 1st February 2026 not a single PBer will claim the CIA never actually bought Pollocks at exorbitant prices - but during Cold War many would be sceptical even dismissive here.
@kevinmkruse.bsky.social
Am I positive that video shows the president shitting himself on camera? No.
Do I think we should spend an entire week debating it? Oh yes.
https://bsky.app/profile/kevinmkruse.bsky.social/post/3mdt7qmsz3k2d
Currently its not worth the time and effort to go in any as there's not a critical mass of whatever I might be interested in.
Cancer Research UK: god forbid we cure cancer! I’m not aware of CRUK taking any money from the state.
Amnesty: don’t receive any money from the state.
British Heart Foundation: ditto.
PDSA: ditto.
There are times when I’ve contemplated doing bad things, but then I realise that the remembrance of them, would make my blood run cold, in the small hours.
Mark Twain with a fiery humour that Ambrose Bierce must have liked.
It is not impossible that the choice I make - saving my journey - is more efficient and kinder on the ecosphere.
What amazes me is how much gargantuan retail still exists. As one who almost never uses it, it seems grotesquely dominant. Whole cities are full of retail outlets selling complete junk to each other, while the stuff I would quite like - like bank branches or a local HMRC office where I can ask a human a question have vanished.
A branch of retail sadly vanished but which used to exist is men's outfitters dedicated mostly to the interests of older unfashionable men who hate clothes, looking smart, buying things and shopping. The nearest thing is an outfit called Amazon who deliver.
Although any attempts to impose it, either formally or informally, comes with costs to both the economy and to individual freedom.
He said the most difficult thing was seeing the faces of his parents when they first visited him.
I think they visited him about 10 days after he was sentenced so he was still in a Category A prison waiting to be sent to an open prison.
When he found out the checks they perform on visitors to Cat A prisons and people they had sit with in the waiting room he contemplated suicide.
Epstein had quite shrewd political advice:
https://x.com/annemcelvoy/status/2018075806619033973
why not let tories govern with minority, no coalition cant get anything done.. - finish summer. then in sept decide labor, europe china etc.
That's the thing with coercion or forced choice - when the Government does it, it's bad, when the market does it, it's good?
I have a couple of dozen Penguin African Library* series, several of which came from charity shops online.
https://www.penguinfirsteditions.com/index.php?cat=mainAP
*a bit of a niche interest, but I find that original works on the heady early days of independence movements in Africa give a very interesting contrast to contemporary works. There's always something interesting about predictions of the future which go wrong.
Ultimately Biden's cabinet, certainly collectively and probably individually, could have forced him not to seek a second term.
Yet they all acquiesced in the stupidity, all accepted that it could end in disaster.
It all depends on what you want out of life of course.
Just think about what you would want in your eulogy.
A. Shoot you in the back...
I do wonder if there's a credibility issue with current polling.