His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
No there wasn't. There was one called Kevin Pietersen who was also outrageously talented, and certainly very badly managed by England.
I'm not qualified to talk about football, so have no opinion on Bellingham, but you can't even spell Pietersen's name.
One Minister takes aim at a "posse of old baldies throwing dirt on a brilliant woman for having a bit of chutzpah". They add: "She’s restless, focused, creative and understands the scale of the crisis this country faces."
But someone else who worked with her says: "The only thing you need to know about Antonia is that she has a mock cover of Vogue with her own face on it."
Don’t often think of the Civil Service as being more competitive, bitchy and political than actual PMQs.
I don’t actually like it.
Just sums up what I commented on yesterday
If she is good enough, strong enough so what if she is not universally popular and has wound up old civil service protocols
It's interesting and encouraging that Labour are so much more popular than their leader. Leaders are ephemeral whereas brands take a long time to develop.
It suggests there are several ways to grow their popularity.
Get the leader to get back into step with the brand or change the leader to one who can. If I was advising I'd stay with him. He has plenty of time to rebrand himserlf and if he isn't up to it the Party have plenty of time to find someone who can.
It all points to the necessity of getting a decent research department and stop relying on the prejudices of a small group of advisors.
Kemi must be livid with Jim Ratcliffe. She had Sir Keir in her sights, and then he came along with this mega-distraction and united the Left.
Ratcliffe is just a filler act before the next elevation of nonce pals development
Kemis on half term now. The x bot is switched on, she'll be back Monday 23rd
I have already told you she has responded, but your misogyny is not a good look at all and feeds into the labour women's complaint of a mans club attiude in labour
Nothing to do with mysogony
She's useless
She lies She has no credible policy She is lazy, Tories have told her that
Yawn
squareroot2, might I suggest a coffee or some other caffeinated product?
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
Tuchel should not bring his Bayern Munich bitterness in to the FA
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Ratcliffe if he wasn't someone who fucked off to Monaco to avoid tax.
Yet we still have to listen to his whining. Isn't he an immigrant himself then?
That's what you get with Labour. The rich fuck off to avoid paying ludicrously high taxes.
See California for more details, where they proposed a ‘billionaire tax’ on unrealised capital gains, and half of the dozen richest people in the state moved to Florida or Texas. It’s not even passed yet but it’s already causing emigration.
Yet they’re the selfish ones for not wanting to give their money to the state 🤷♂️
FPT: The underlying theory is that richer people pay quite a lot of tax because their wealth/income is only possible because the state educates their labour, builds the roads and railways their goods move around on, provide healthcare as their staff age, provide a state pension and and so on. This is even more stark in the UK where we have millions of working people on benefits - an effective subsidy to employers.
There are a number of large corporations and wealthy individuals freeloading on the state in the UK by avoiding taxes. They are acting rationally, but coldly, and I think it’s fair to describe them as selfish as a shorthand for that kind of behaviour. Ensuring they pay their keep is in the interest of us all - particularly small businesses who can't avoid taxes in the same way, and get crowded out, and people like me earning a good wage but paying a 56% marginal rate.
Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal and rational. We pay too much. Jim Ratcliffe is sensible to manage his tax like it. We need to encourage high earners to stay and not stigmatise them.
The fact you clearly pay too much tax from your income doesn’t mean others need to be punished more.
Creating employment creates tax and NI revenues and businesses also pay local taxes to local authorities, corporation tax and all other manner of taxes. They also create work opportunities for smaller businesses and sole traders..
It is not a case of rich employers just taking money. If the state didn’t educate Labour or put in infrastructure then employers would go elsewhere. They don’t have to come here and we’d miss their money. Many employers, like my last company, actively,put back into the community and also give time, free, to go to events to support young people to go into STEM industries. They do this because they want to not because there’s a tax advantage.
We should be cutting taxes and doing more to attract businesses not stigmatising them.
From the latest available DWP statistics reported in November 2025 (covering data around October 2025): • There were approximately 2.2 million working people on Universal Credit.
Many people don’t want more than 16 hours due to loss of not only UC but other benefits such as council tax reduction, housing benefit and many others.
Politicians have created this system. They did so to make people reliant in part on the state. Blame employers all you like.
I pay more tax because people like Ratcliffe make their billions and then dodge paying their taxes. Its estimated he saved £4bn by 'moving to Monaco'.
So basically every income taxpayer in the country is paying an extra £100 thanks to Jim.
Luckily Monaco exists, as a check on Western governments, that they can’t arbitrarily confiscate ever-increasing amounts of tax from a smaller and smaller number of people.
UK tax rates on the wealthy have not increased. The reason such a large proportion of revenues come from this small group is because such a large proportion of income now accrues to them. This gives them an enormous amount of power, because the nation's finances are entirely dependent on them not slouching off. This is very dangerous for a democracy.
In the long run it would be better for the UK economy if we were to automatically strip British Citizenship from those who avoid UK tax, and prohibit them from owning any UK property or businesses, or deriving any income from them. Then they'd actually have a stake in building the economy rather than leeching off it.
Is that true ? From my own perspective, as someone looking sometime in the next few years to retire from and sell a UK engineering business worth high 7 figures, my tax position has become significantly worse in the last decade or so: - corporation tax rate up by a quarter; - dividend taxation rates up by an average of about a fifth; - CGT bill on sale of business likely more than doubled (mostly due to entrepreneur relief value being reduced from max £1.8m to max £60k); - clampdown on salary sacrifice for pension; - new IHT liability if business kept in estate instead; - new IHT liability on pension fund, probably at effective rate of 60% as it will be the only asset triggering clawback of residence nil rate band.
That's before analysing the more subtle impacts of NI and other changes on profitability.
And with Starmer a dead man walking, a wealth tax, even on the unrealised value of the business, looks like a real possibility.
I love living in the UK but it now has nearly the highest aggregate taxation of successful owner managed businesses in Europe: 25% CT then 39.1% IT on dividends. It would take me about 6 months to move the whole business to one of half a dozen other countries in Europe where its tax bill and mine would be lower, the labour pool is cheaper and no less skilled, and some post-Brexit hassles would go away. I haven't done it because there is more to life than money, but at some point it starts to feel like government is taking the p*ss...
The position Labour inherited was not their fault, but they've had a year and a half to show whether their business/growth friendly noises meant anything and it's not been great...
Fair enough - I was thinking exclusively about income tax (where this is the case). I would argue that part of the reason that tax rate is so high is because we're so ineffective at taxation elsewhere. Tbh id bin the vast majority of the business taxes you describe and chuck it all on simple and unavoidable stuff like income tax, council tax and VAT. Politically impossible of course.
In response to this morning's GDP figures, Chancellor Rachel Reeves says the UK the "fastest growing G7 economy in Europe" *. “The Government has the right economic plan to build a stronger and more secure economy, cutting the cost of living, cutting the national debt and creating the conditions for growth and investment in every part of the country.”
* The specificity kinda of gives the game away.
No-one dares say that the US is going gangbusters.
Yep. Massive deficit spending does produce growth in the short term.
Not sustainable in the long term obviously, indeed a major problem.
Where's ours?
We have very high energy costs.
It is often overlooked but economies run on energy.
Indeed and a lunatic in charge of the energy portfolio who will make it worse.
Ed Conway wrote a really interesting book on raw materials and, as part of that, visited factories producing products like Nitrogen and Soda Ash in the U.K. key products we need.
In the few years since he wrote the book many of these places had closed down. Energy prices being a major problem.
The religious belief that high energy prices and the consequent discouraging of energy use are required to reach Net Zero is deeply embedded.
As we enter a world where ever increasing amounts of ‘leccy are from wind or solar this is ridiculous.
See the rules on air-con
Where to you get this nonsense? UK electricity generation is going to increase by about 100 TWh over the next 10 years, probably a lot more given what is happening with solar. And that's under the supposed maniac Ed Miliband.
And frankly reducing energy use to lower prices does make basic economic sense. Part of the reason that massive increase in electricity is not going to drive prices down too much is because of increased demand from EVs, AI etc.
The institutional policy, at many levels in government is that energy usage must be driven down.
Reducing electricity prices is seen as harmful to that goal.
This is a classic example of how once you setup a culture, the policies keep on rolling.
This made sense when the grid was 70% coal fired.
Is there any evidence for this? And surely reduced energy costs is the result of such a policy. And frankly if it exists it's a sensible policy - investing in a machine or building or lorry that uses less energy, and reduces your costs, is what it is known as productivity growth.
But closing down businesses isn't, and prices have contributed to the demise of manufacturing industry.
In theory renewables - particularly solar - ought to drive down prices. In practice that has not happened here. And large energy uses tend to pay more rather than less for their electricity.
China provides alone example of how a virtuous circle of increasing energy usage, falling prices and increasing renewables can come about. But that has required a decades long plan and extraordinary investment in renewables manufacturing. (And their nuclear build for full sized power stations is also highly efficient - benefitting from the economies of scale we're still at the theory stage for SMRs.)
The domestic production of renewables technology is a separate issue.
But we have an electricity “market” where higher prices are baked into the design. With a attempts to reduce those prices for domestic users, when the political pain peaks.
It's a linked issue, but I agree our electricity market is a mess. (And attempt to do what China did could only be on a Europe wide scale, anyway.)
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Ratcliffe if he wasn't someone who fucked off to Monaco to avoid tax.
Yet we still have to listen to his whining. Isn't he an immigrant himself then?
That's what you get with Labour. The rich fuck off to avoid paying ludicrously high taxes.
See California for more details, where they proposed a ‘billionaire tax’ on unrealised capital gains, and half of the dozen richest people in the state moved to Florida or Texas. It’s not even passed yet but it’s already causing emigration.
Yet they’re the selfish ones for not wanting to give their money to the state 🤷♂️
FPT: The underlying theory is that richer people pay quite a lot of tax because their wealth/income is only possible because the state educates their labour, builds the roads and railways their goods move around on, provide healthcare as their staff age, provide a state pension and and so on. This is even more stark in the UK where we have millions of working people on benefits - an effective subsidy to employers.
There are a number of large corporations and wealthy individuals freeloading on the state in the UK by avoiding taxes. They are acting rationally, but coldly, and I think it’s fair to describe them as selfish as a shorthand for that kind of behaviour. Ensuring they pay their keep is in the interest of us all - particularly small businesses who can't avoid taxes in the same way, and get crowded out, and people like me earning a good wage but paying a 56% marginal rate.
Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal and rational. We pay too much. Jim Ratcliffe is sensible to manage his tax like it. We need to encourage high earners to stay and not stigmatise them.
The fact you clearly pay too much tax from your income doesn’t mean others need to be punished more.
Creating employment creates tax and NI revenues and businesses also pay local taxes to local authorities, corporation tax and all other manner of taxes. They also create work opportunities for smaller businesses and sole traders..
It is not a case of rich employers just taking money. If the state didn’t educate Labour or put in infrastructure then employers would go elsewhere. They don’t have to come here and we’d miss their money. Many employers, like my last company, actively,put back into the community and also give time, free, to go to events to support young people to go into STEM industries. They do this because they want to not because there’s a tax advantage.
We should be cutting taxes and doing more to attract businesses not stigmatising them.
From the latest available DWP statistics reported in November 2025 (covering data around October 2025): • There were approximately 2.2 million working people on Universal Credit.
Many people don’t want more than 16 hours due to loss of not only UC but other benefits such as council tax reduction, housing benefit and many others.
Politicians have created this system. They did so to make people reliant in part on the state. Blame employers all you like.
I pay more tax because people like Ratcliffe make their billions and then dodge paying their taxes. Its estimated he saved £4bn by 'moving to Monaco'.
So basically every income taxpayer in the country is paying an extra £100 thanks to Jim.
Luckily Monaco exists, as a check on Western governments, that they can’t arbitrarily confiscate ever-increasing amounts of tax from a smaller and smaller number of people.
UK tax rates on the wealthy have not increased. The reason such a large proportion of revenues come from this small group is because such a large proportion of income now accrues to them. This gives them an enormous amount of power, because the nation's finances are entirely dependent on them not slouching off. This is very dangerous for a democracy.
In the long run it would be better for the UK economy if we were to automatically strip British Citizenship from those who avoid UK tax, and prohibit them from owning any UK property or businesses, or deriving any income from them. Then they'd actually have a stake in building the economy rather than leeching off it.
I think that anyone has the right to be resentful if they are seeing most of their income being taken in tax (outside of national emergency), and to be hostile towards punitive marginal tax rates.
But, I don't think any rich person has any right to complain, if they see 30-40% of their income going in tax, in a rich world country. Living in a country that is democratic, wealthy, peaceful, with some excellent educational, and cultural institutions, is an immense privilege, and one which you should not resent paying for.
Indeed so. Which is why you start to see people complaining once tax rates go above 40%.
Most rich world democracies are unequal, for sure, but egalitarian by historical standards.
The richest 1% hold 10% of the wealth in the UK, which is quite typical of the rich world.
The real outlier is the USA, where the richest 1% hold 30% of wealth.
Back in the Roman Empire, the 1% would have held about 75% of the wealth.
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Ratcliffe if he wasn't someone who fucked off to Monaco to avoid tax.
Yet we still have to listen to his whining. Isn't he an immigrant himself then?
That's what you get with Labour. The rich fuck off to avoid paying ludicrously high taxes.
See California for more details, where they proposed a ‘billionaire tax’ on unrealised capital gains, and half of the dozen richest people in the state moved to Florida or Texas. It’s not even passed yet but it’s already causing emigration.
Yet they’re the selfish ones for not wanting to give their money to the state 🤷♂️
FPT: The underlying theory is that richer people pay quite a lot of tax because their wealth/income is only possible because the state educates their labour, builds the roads and railways their goods move around on, provide healthcare as their staff age, provide a state pension and and so on. This is even more stark in the UK where we have millions of working people on benefits - an effective subsidy to employers.
There are a number of large corporations and wealthy individuals freeloading on the state in the UK by avoiding taxes. They are acting rationally, but coldly, and I think it’s fair to describe them as selfish as a shorthand for that kind of behaviour. Ensuring they pay their keep is in the interest of us all - particularly small businesses who can't avoid taxes in the same way, and get crowded out, and people like me earning a good wage but paying a 56% marginal rate.
Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal and rational. We pay too much. Jim Ratcliffe is sensible to manage his tax like it. We need to encourage high earners to stay and not stigmatise them.
The fact you clearly pay too much tax from your income doesn’t mean others need to be punished more.
Creating employment creates tax and NI revenues and businesses also pay local taxes to local authorities, corporation tax and all other manner of taxes. They also create work opportunities for smaller businesses and sole traders..
It is not a case of rich employers just taking money. If the state didn’t educate Labour or put in infrastructure then employers would go elsewhere. They don’t have to come here and we’d miss their money. Many employers, like my last company, actively,put back into the community and also give time, free, to go to events to support young people to go into STEM industries. They do this because they want to not because there’s a tax advantage.
We should be cutting taxes and doing more to attract businesses not stigmatising them.
From the latest available DWP statistics reported in November 2025 (covering data around October 2025): • There were approximately 2.2 million working people on Universal Credit.
Many people don’t want more than 16 hours due to loss of not only UC but other benefits such as council tax reduction, housing benefit and many others.
Politicians have created this system. They did so to make people reliant in part on the state. Blame employers all you like.
I pay more tax because people like Ratcliffe make their billions and then dodge paying their taxes. Its estimated he saved £4bn by 'moving to Monaco'.
So basically every income taxpayer in the country is paying an extra £100 thanks to Jim.
Luckily Monaco exists, as a check on Western governments, that they can’t arbitrarily confiscate ever-increasing amounts of tax from a smaller and smaller number of people.
UK tax rates on the wealthy have not increased. The reason such a large proportion of revenues come from this small group is because such a large proportion of income now accrues to them. This gives them an enormous amount of power, because the nation's finances are entirely dependent on them not slouching off. This is very dangerous for a democracy.
In the long run it would be better for the UK economy if we were to automatically strip British Citizenship from those who avoid UK tax, and prohibit them from owning any UK property or businesses, or deriving any income from them. Then they'd actually have a stake in building the economy rather than leeching off it.
I think that anyone has the right to be resentful if they are seeing most of their income being taken in tax (outside of national emergency), and to be hostile towards punitive marginal tax rates.
But, I don't think any rich person has any right to complain, if they see 30-40% of their income going in tax, in a rich world country. Living in a country that is democratic, wealthy, peaceful, with some excellent educational, and cultural institutions, is an immense privilege, and one which you should not resent paying for.
Indeed so. Which is why you start to see people complaining once tax rates go above 40%.
The marginal rate for a typical graduate on £30K or £40K is 20% IT, + 8% NI, + 9% loan. 37%. Too high.
Yes, and the freezing of the 40% threashold will drag more people into it in the next few years. Add the student loan and you’re already over 50% marginal deduction rate at only £50k salary.
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
No there wasn't. There was one called Kevin Pietersen who was also outrageously talented, and certainly very badly managed by England.
I'm not qualified to talk about football, so have no opinion on Bellingham, but you can't even spell Pietersen's name.
Sorry. I only just remember him so was young, but I got it phonetically right.
Did I get the true history? He couldn’t integrate in the team, he was a disruptive weirdo, so there was no choice but leave him out at height of his playing career?
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
Inflation is falling, but prices are still going up.
Net migration is falling, but the population is still going up (and quite a few of the emigrants are people you really want to keep in the country).
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
The public want immigration to be similar to the early/mid 1990s when it was around 50,000 a year. Anything else and they'll think it's too high. Reducing it from, say, 500k to 400k isn't going to do it.
One Minister takes aim at a "posse of old baldies throwing dirt on a brilliant woman for having a bit of chutzpah". They add: "She’s restless, focused, creative and understands the scale of the crisis this country faces."
But someone else who worked with her says: "The only thing you need to know about Antonia is that she has a mock cover of Vogue with her own face on it."
Don’t often think of the Civil Service as being more competitive, bitchy and political than actual PMQs.
I don’t actually like it.
Just sums up what I commented on yesterday
If she is good enough, strong enough so what if she is not universally popular and has wound up old civil service protocols
Get her in
Should they not all be compared to Sir Humphrey in the vetting process? Protect our great university’s, both of them, and radio 3, because it’s nice to know it’s there. Is it still there?
No. If someone who is supposed to be invisible is already leading the news as a divisive figure, she can’t have the job.
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
Pietersen.
The difference was with Pietersen he was a Saffer and he always delivered for us, like Jude
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
Surprised to hear the fox admonishing the farmer for not looking after the chickens properly.
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
‘Net migration is going to continue to fall -problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth”
Does it? I thought that myth was put to bed.
We’ve done nothing but let people in for six years, and growth had gone no where, so it seems an odd thing to say. As well as telling the electorate we have to continue with hundreds of thousands a year just to keep 0.1% growth.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
Surprised to hear the fox admonishing the farmer for not looking after the chickens properly.
If the farmer doesn’t look after the chickens, then the fox will go hungry.
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
‘Net migration is going to continue to fall -problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth”
Does it? I thought that myth was put to bed.
We’ve done nothing but let people in for six years, and growth had gone no where, so it seems an odd thing to say. As well as telling the electorate we have to continue with hundreds of thousands a year just to keep 0.1% growth.
And Trump is delivering 5% growth while reaching negative net migration.
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
No there wasn't. There was one called Kevin Pietersen who was also outrageously talented, and certainly very badly managed by England.
I'm not qualified to talk about football, so have no opinion on Bellingham, but you can't even spell Pietersen's name.
On star players vs team performance I think the West German and latterly German national teams show the way. I don't think they have always been packed with the greatest players, but somehow have always been greater than the sum of their parts (until relatively recently). IN contrast England has too often had very good players that were either unable to fit the team or were shoe-horned into the wrong role. See the endless Lampard/Gerrard conundrum. Bellingham is a seriously good player, but I sense he doesn't fit for Tuchel. Tuchel's problem will be when he leaves Bellingham out and England don't win the WC.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
Surprised to hear the fox admonishing the farmer for not looking after the chickens properly.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
Let me just widely share something about Jude and his family that Taz will no doubt be aware of but many won't
Aside from the fact he joined Birmingham City at 7 and often played 2 to 3 years in advance of his age range.
He made his debut and breakthrough at 16 in the midst of Covid, the Club near bankruptcy, half of the ground closed due to discovery of contaminated backfill and poor building. A transfer embargo and points deducted.
As bad as it could be.
His parents turned down and refused huge offers from PL and Global academies from age 10.
They could have raked in millions
His dad a copper, his mom a nurse. His brother Jobe some thought better than Jude, they devoted their lives to.
Jude insisted he stayed with his boyhood Club until he could sign a professional contract. The family were offered tens of millions. They refused.
Jude signed his first pro contract on his 17th birthday, 3 days later he joined Dortmund for a reputed £21,000,000.
That money went to the Club he loves and supports. There would be no Club but for that.
Granted he will make millions, his parents will benefit but for years they literally turned away millions.
In this cynical materialistic age that is a massive endorsement of him and his family.
I remain convinced that his aim is to return to England only when his club are in a position to offer him a premiership place.
Truly remarkable
Yes, he is and he is a young man of great character as your story confirms.
Last year he was back and posing with the Trevor Francis statue before the game. He always makes time for the fans.
Like you I’m convinced he wants to play for us in the Premier League and end his career with us. His career will go full circle
Given how parlous our finances were his signing for us has been credited with saving the club from a financial apocalypse. Prior to Tom Wagner (get well soon) we were in dire shape.
It’s tall poppy syndrome. So typical of the U.K. we love to knock success and then relish the eventual redemption story.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Ratcliffe if he wasn't someone who fucked off to Monaco to avoid tax.
Yet we still have to listen to his whining. Isn't he an immigrant himself then?
That's what you get with Labour. The rich fuck off to avoid paying ludicrously high taxes.
See California for more details, where they proposed a ‘billionaire tax’ on unrealised capital gains, and half of the dozen richest people in the state moved to Florida or Texas. It’s not even passed yet but it’s already causing emigration.
Yet they’re the selfish ones for not wanting to give their money to the state 🤷♂️
FPT: The underlying theory is that richer people pay quite a lot of tax because their wealth/income is only possible because the state educates their labour, builds the roads and railways their goods move around on, provide healthcare as their staff age, provide a state pension and and so on. This is even more stark in the UK where we have millions of working people on benefits - an effective subsidy to employers.
There are a number of large corporations and wealthy individuals freeloading on the state in the UK by avoiding taxes. They are acting rationally, but coldly, and I think it’s fair to describe them as selfish as a shorthand for that kind of behaviour. Ensuring they pay their keep is in the interest of us all - particularly small businesses who can't avoid taxes in the same way, and get crowded out, and people like me earning a good wage but paying a 56% marginal rate.
Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal and rational. We pay too much. Jim Ratcliffe is sensible to manage his tax like it. We need to encourage high earners to stay and not stigmatise them.
The fact you clearly pay too much tax from your income doesn’t mean others need to be punished more.
Creating employment creates tax and NI revenues and businesses also pay local taxes to local authorities, corporation tax and all other manner of taxes. They also create work opportunities for smaller businesses and sole traders..
It is not a case of rich employers just taking money. If the state didn’t educate Labour or put in infrastructure then employers would go elsewhere. They don’t have to come here and we’d miss their money. Many employers, like my last company, actively,put back into the community and also give time, free, to go to events to support young people to go into STEM industries. They do this because they want to not because there’s a tax advantage.
We should be cutting taxes and doing more to attract businesses not stigmatising them.
From the latest available DWP statistics reported in November 2025 (covering data around October 2025): • There were approximately 2.2 million working people on Universal Credit.
Many people don’t want more than 16 hours due to loss of not only UC but other benefits such as council tax reduction, housing benefit and many others.
Politicians have created this system. They did so to make people reliant in part on the state. Blame employers all you like.
I pay more tax because people like Ratcliffe make their billions and then dodge paying their taxes. Its estimated he saved £4bn by 'moving to Monaco'.
So basically every income taxpayer in the country is paying an extra £100 thanks to Jim.
Luckily Monaco exists, as a check on Western governments, that they can’t arbitrarily confiscate ever-increasing amounts of tax from a smaller and smaller number of people.
UK tax rates on the wealthy have not increased. The reason such a large proportion of revenues come from this small group is because such a large proportion of income now accrues to them. This gives them an enormous amount of power, because the nation's finances are entirely dependent on them not slouching off. This is very dangerous for a democracy.
In the long run it would be better for the UK economy if we were to automatically strip British Citizenship from those who avoid UK tax, and prohibit them from owning any UK property or businesses, or deriving any income from them. Then they'd actually have a stake in building the economy rather than leeching off it.
Is that true ? From my own perspective, as someone looking sometime in the next few years to retire from and sell a UK engineering business worth high 7 figures, my tax position has become significantly worse in the last decade or so: - corporation tax rate up by a quarter; - dividend taxation rates up by an average of about a fifth; - CGT bill on sale of business likely more than doubled (mostly due to entrepreneur relief value being reduced from max £1.8m to max £60k); - clampdown on salary sacrifice for pension; - new IHT liability if business kept in estate instead; - new IHT liability on pension fund, probably at effective rate of 60% as it will be the only asset triggering clawback of residence nil rate band.
That's before analysing the more subtle impacts of NI and other changes on profitability.
And with Starmer a dead man walking, a wealth tax, even on the unrealised value of the business, looks like a real possibility.
I love living in the UK but it now has nearly the highest aggregate taxation of successful owner managed businesses in Europe: 25% CT then 39.1% IT on dividends. It would take me about 6 months to move the whole business to one of half a dozen other countries in Europe where its tax bill and mine would be lower, the labour pool is cheaper and no less skilled, and some post-Brexit hassles would go away. I haven't done it because there is more to life than money, but at some point it starts to feel like government is taking the p*ss...
The position Labour inherited was not their fault, but they've had a year and a half to show whether their business/growth friendly noises meant anything and it's not been great...
Why on earth would this govt and the previous one give a financial punishment beating to entrepreneurs and job/wealth creators.
You tax something if you want less of it, as a rule.
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
‘Net migration is going to continue to fall -problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth”
Does it? I thought that myth was put to bed.
We’ve done nothing but let people in for six years, and growth had gone no where, so it seems an odd thing to say. As well as telling the electorate we have to continue with hundreds of thousands a year just to keep 0.1% growth.
And Trump is delivering 5% growth while reaching negative net migration.
Apart from the actual lying and manipulation of stats in the US, they are in the middle of a tulip AI bubble
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
This seems a rather Damascene conversion to a pro business agenda.
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
No there wasn't. There was one called Kevin Pietersen who was also outrageously talented, and certainly very badly managed by England.
I'm not qualified to talk about football, so have no opinion on Bellingham, but you can't even spell Pietersen's name.
On star players vs team performance I think the West German and latterly German national teams show the way. I don't think they have always been packed with the greatest players, but somehow have always been greater than the sum of their parts (until relatively recently). IN contrast England has too often had very good players that were either unable to fit the team or were shoe-horned into the wrong role. See the endless Lampard/Gerrard conundrum. Bellingham is a seriously good player, but I sense he doesn't fit for Tuchel. Tuchel's problem will be when he leaves Bellingham out and England don't win the WC.
Otoh Messi wasn't asked to play out of position and track back in the last World Cup.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
Surprised to hear the fox admonishing the farmer for not looking after the chickens properly.
If the farmer doesn’t look after the chickens, then the fox will go hungry.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
This seems a rather Damascene conversion to a pro business agenda.
Won’t please her Union paymasters.
Maybe she realises businesses provide growth not governments which is the antithesis of Reeves
The biggest piece I’ve written for the Spectator - 3,500 words on how Starmer blew it. Packed with new details, telling quotes and analysis - every last bit of it from a Labour source
"Keir has never met a policy that he had a natural view on. That's why he's capable of thinking that ID cards are terrible and then ID cards are wonderful and must be compulsory and then that they mustn't be compulsory."
I think Starmer not having a ‘natural’ view on anything is pretty spot on. He’s not a completely terrible human being, certainly compared to some of his predecessors, but he’s a lifeless celestial object that drifts in and out of positions depending on gravitational pull. This lack of naturalness also bleeds into Starmer’s delivery which lacks any sense of spontaneity or authenticity, prerequisites for any semi successful politician.
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
Pietersen.
The difference was with Pietersen he was a Saffer and he always delivered for us, like Jude
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
The public want immigration to be similar to the early/mid 1990s when it was around 50,000 a year. Anything else and they'll think it's too high. Reducing it from, say, 500k to 400k isn't going to do it.
To a large group of people, as we may well discover, the heart of the problem is not in fact either the boats or the annual net numbers; it is the millions already here.
If the boats are sorted and the net numbers reduced then the attention of the Reform/Radcliffes turns to communities already here. The danger at that point is that the issue turns from border control to the demonisation of millions who have been here for years. That would be a move from a bit of flag waving nationalism to a hugely more malign thing.
...Tim Shipman's essay on Starmer in the Speccy is just tremendous. Shows up the utter hole at the centre of the project. Policy or philosophy both entirely absent!
I have been telling you that since before the election.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
This seems a rather Damascene conversion to a pro business agenda.
Won’t please her Union paymasters.
Maybe she realises businesses provide growth not governments which is the antithesis of Reeves
We've seen what Rayner actually thinks should happen re business taxation: even higher taxation of dividends
His disgraceful treatment of Bellingham is inexplicable and based on a bias from his days in Bundesleague
Bellingham is a prima donna who, whilst being a very good footballer, is a risk to the performance of the team as he doesn’t seem able to play for England without it being about “him”. I would rather see a very highly functioning team than one where big name players are shoved in on reputation.
Thats complete and utter hogwash
The greatest natural talent since Duncan Edwards
Should be the first name on the team sheet with Kane and the team built around them.
It’s absolute shit
Jude Bellingham is a phenomenal player and a decent person too.
He’s delivering week in week out. He does not live off his reputation.
He’s not delivering week in week out, it’s actually going wrong for him at club level as well as international level. There is something wrong there, and Tuchel spotted it straight away.
These things do happen - there was a cricketer called Peterson who wouldn’t integrate in a dressing room and become with the band of brothers. In football Neymar was the same, and the Brazil dressing room turned against him.
Jude is not being taken to the World Cup. That is what this extension says to me, the employers backing the manager in not taking Jude to the World Cup.
Pietersen.
The difference was with Pietersen he was a Saffer and he always delivered for us, like Jude
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
This seems a rather Damascene conversion to a pro business agenda.
Won’t please her Union paymasters.
Maybe she realises businesses provide growth not governments which is the antithesis of Reeves
We've seen what Rayner actually thinks should happen re business taxation: even higher taxation of dividends
...Tim Shipman's essay on Starmer in the Speccy is just tremendous. Shows up the utter hole at the centre of the project. Policy or philosophy both entirely absent!
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
The fall in net migration means that the economic growth we are getting is showing up in GDP per head, rather than just being a feature of an expanding population.
Over 25 years, the theory that very high levels of immigration generate high economic growth has proved wanting.
Net migration is going to continue to fall but a lot of the public still think it’s going up .
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
The public want immigration to be similar to the early/mid 1990s when it was around 50,000 a year. Anything else and they'll think it's too high. Reducing it from, say, 500k to 400k isn't going to do it.
To a large group of people, as we may well discover, the heart of the problem is not in fact either the boats or the annual net numbers; it is the millions already here.
They are related though, in a sense. The number of people uneasy with first gen immigrants is vastly larger than the number uneasy with third gen immigrants who are exactly like them save for skin colour.
Angela Rayner of all people has just said that the minimum wage going up is a "challenge" for businesses.
"Too often people see businesses as all the same - they’re not. I talked about the challenges - it’s not even the double whammy, it’s not even the triple whammy, it’s business rates, the challenges on VAT, yes the minimum wage and living wage going up, the cost of energy. “We’ve got to start looking at the intersectionality of all these challenges and start relieving them.”
Another article by Tom Tugendhat on defence procurement.
Fragmented force Why Europe struggles with capability and readiness https://thereset.tomtugendhat.org/p/fragmented-force ..European armed forces collectively operate around 180 major weapons systems. The United States operates roughly 30. Europe fields 17 different types of main battle tank, including the Leopard, Leclerc, Challenger, Ariete, PT-91, and several modernised Soviet legacy designs still in service across eastern Europe. The United States fields one..
..The logic is straightforward. Countries that buy together reduce unit costs, standardise equipment, and increase output. SAFE loans are designed to incentivise joint procurement and to rebuild Europe’s industrial base at scale, particularly in ammunition, air defence, drones, and armoured vehicles.
The first tranche of SAFE funding for eight member states was approved in January 2026, with disbursements beginning in March.9 Fifteen EU states are already planning collaborative projects involving Ukraine, both to support Kyiv and to integrate its battle-tested industry into Europe’s supply chains. The EU has set an explicit target that 40 percent of defence procurement should be collaborative rather than national.
This is not about creating a European army. That idea collapses the moment it encounters reality. Allied deployments in Libya and Afghanistan demonstrated how national caveats can paralyse operations: German aircraft restricted from striking, Swedish troops limited in where they could deploy, and political vetoes exercised in real time, all exposed the limits of multinational forces without unified political authority. An army that cannot fight under pressure is not an army.
What Europe is attempting instead is to build a European defence market that can function under stress.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
...Tim Shipman's essay on Starmer in the Speccy is just tremendous. Shows up the utter hole at the centre of the project. Policy or philosophy both entirely absent!
I have been telling you that since before the election.
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
My cabinet secretary goes to another school etc etc etc Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
...Tim Shipman's essay on Starmer in the Speccy is just tremendous. Shows up the utter hole at the centre of the project. Policy or philosophy both entirely absent!
I have been telling you that since before the election.
(breaks down sobbing)
Yeh, but his dad was a toolmaker.
So there's that.
And he does a round of toast for the kids before school
...Tim Shipman's essay on Starmer in the Speccy is just tremendous. Shows up the utter hole at the centre of the project. Policy or philosophy both entirely absent!
I have been telling you that since before the election.
(breaks down sobbing)
Yeh, but his dad was a toolmaker.
So there's that.
And he does a round of toast for the kids before school
Too proud to use the Breakfast Club we get a Lab press release about every single day?
The biggest piece I’ve written for the Spectator - 3,500 words on how Starmer blew it. Packed with new details, telling quotes and analysis - every last bit of it from a Labour source
"Keir has never met a policy that he had a natural view on. That's why he's capable of thinking that ID cards are terrible and then ID cards are wonderful and must be compulsory and then that they mustn't be compulsory."
I think Starmer not having a ‘natural’ view on anything is pretty spot on. He’s not a completely terrible human being, certainly compared to some of his predecessors, but he’s a lifeless celestial object that drifts in and out of positions depending on gravitational pull. This lack of naturalness also bleeds into Starmer’s delivery which lacks any sense of spontaneity or authenticity, prerequisites for any semi successful politician.
Shipman is just adding insider gossip to what pb has been saying for more than a year, that Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. He believes in the law. If the rules change, his position changes – ask the trans lobby (or the Chagos lobby). What were Starmer's greatest hits? He expelled Corbyn and defenestrated Boris not by inspiring grassroot movements but by knowing and exploiting Labour's rulebook and parliamentary procedure respectively.
...Tim Shipman's essay on Starmer in the Speccy is just tremendous. Shows up the utter hole at the centre of the project. Policy or philosophy both entirely absent!
I have been telling you that since before the election.
(breaks down sobbing)
Yeh, but his dad was a toolmaker.
So there's that.
And he does a round of toast for the kids before school
Too proud to use the Breakfast Club we get a Lab press release about every single day?
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
The amount of parking with major increases is tiny - something like 3-5%, and only then afaics in summer.
Essentially they are heavily incentivising day trippers to park away from the seafront, so that will be more available for people coming for a couple of hours.
That's quite sensible to increase throughput of visitors, following classic free market principles to charge more for scarce resources in heavy demand.
I'll be interested to see if it works eg for footfall or meals out.
Presumably, it will be good for hotels with their own spaces.
The Islamic regime in Iran has just been elected as Vice-Chair of the U.N. Commission for Social Development, whose priority theme will be promoting democracy, gender equality, and ensuring tolerance and non-violence.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
Yeah, she knows what she stands for... and it's not the emollient words she's gently massaging into the aching limbs of business.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
she is a donkey with a big gob, never had a real job in her life.
Ratcliffe's apology is the most irritating non-apology going.
"sorry my choice of language has offended some people"
Not sorry that I said the wrong thing, not sorry I did the wrong thing, no instead "sorry [... I ...] offended some people".
Sorry I offended/upset/etc you is what you say when you know you need to say sorry, but are not actually sorry. So instead you make it about the other person and apologise for that, rather than anything you did.
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
My cabinet secretary goes to another school etc etc etc Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
she is a donkey with a big gob, never had a real job in her life.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
The focus on energy prices is an interesting one. Those are pretty much back at their 2021 prices in real terms this year, and the Govt will meet their manifesto reduction pledge.
If Starmer gets his f*cking comms sorted out (a very big if), it is potentially a winning issue.
(Forecast is 2026, not 2025. I looked over the numbers.)
Ratcliffe's apology is the most irritating non-apology going.
"sorry my choice of language has offended some people"
Not sorry that I said the wrong thing, not sorry I did the wrong thing, no instead "sorry [... I ...] offended some people".
Sorry I offended/upset/etc you is what you say when you know you need to say sorry, but are not actually sorry. So instead you make it about the other person and apologise for that, rather than anything you did.
It is a non-apology apology.
As a fellow elite capitalist, can I just say that Ratcliffe is coming across as an utter w*%$er.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
she is a donkey with a big gob, never had a real job in her life.
Ratcliffe's apology is the most irritating non-apology going.
"sorry my choice of language has offended some people"
Not sorry that I said the wrong thing, not sorry I did the wrong thing, no instead "sorry [... I ...] offended some people".
Sorry I offended/upset/etc you is what you say when you know you need to say sorry, but are not actually sorry. So instead you make it about the other person and apologise for that, rather than anything you did.
It is a non-apology apology.
What's interesting is the amount of pushback Ratcliffe got, and how confident it has been.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
she is a donkey with a big gob, never had a real job in her life.
May be you could care to apologise to millions of care staff who do what Ange did
Look after I'll, old frail people, clear up sick, piss, puke and god knows what else for low pay.
That is far more withy a job than some toff who walks in to a job from private school
Ratcliffe's apology is the most irritating non-apology going.
"sorry my choice of language has offended some people"
Not sorry that I said the wrong thing, not sorry I did the wrong thing, no instead "sorry [... I ...] offended some people".
Sorry I offended/upset/etc you is what you say when you know you need to say sorry, but are not actually sorry. So instead you make it about the other person and apologise for that, rather than anything you did.
It is a non-apology apology.
As a fellow elite capitalist, can I just say that Ratcliffe is coming across as an utter w*%$er.
......Britain sits awkwardly outside this structure..
Well yes, but there are reasons for that. European defence cooperation inevitably runs into two major problems: the French and the Germans. The French never compromise and will either "win" the negotiations or leave. (NATO has a similar problem: everybody talks about what they want, then the Americans force the choice to USA). The Germans will always want most of the stuff to be built in Germany regardless of their contributions. Successful cooperations usually avoid the French.
Our defence priorities are similar to the Europeans but not the same. We have to defend the GIUK gap (the "Atlantic Bastion"), maintain some kind of global defence to defend shipping and preserve far-flung colonies like the Falklands, and mount an air and space defence. The Europeans don't need a global reach nor a strategic transport command, since they can usually just drive to a site of Russian attack, so they need a lot of tanks and ground attack capability.
So European cooperation is good but it should revolve around integration into the command structures and ensuring that inter-army communication is fast, secure and works. Hardware cooperation is also good (eg a common bullet calibre, which we have via NATO) but it's a nice-to-have rather than a must-have.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
she is a donkey with a big gob, never had a real job in her life.
May be you could care to apologise to millions of care staff who do what Ange did
Look after I'll, old frail people, clear up sick, piss, puke and god knows what else for low pay.
That is far more withy a job than some toff who walks in to a job from private school
She should go back to doing that then. She’s obviously better at that than politics.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
Ange as the British Meloni isn't a bad comparison.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
she is a donkey with a big gob, never had a real job in her life.
May be you could care to apologise to millions of care staff who do what Ange did
Look after I'll, old frail people, clear up sick, piss, puke and god knows what else for low pay.
That is far more withy a job than some toff who walks in to a job from private school
You'll have to forgive Malcolm. He can be quite forthright. Some posters, huh ?
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
My cabinet secretary goes to another school etc etc etc Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
There was an urgent question this morning re the release of the information from the cabinet office saying the cabinet secretary shouldn’t be changed before all the information is released to the Intelligence Committee
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
The focus on energy prices is an interesting one. Those are pretty much back at their 2021 prices in real terms this year, and the Govt will meet their manifesto reduction pledge.
If Starmer gets his f*cking comms sorted out (a very big if), it is potentially a winning issue.
(Forecast is 2026, not 2025. I looked over the numbers.)
Petrol is cheaper in cash terms, never mind real terms, than in 2012.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's one thing and has one instinct that Keir and Rachel haven't got.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect She doesn't claim to be perfect She's real
Ange as the British Meloni isn't a bad comparison.
Yeah, she's got more "life force" than most. This is often viewed in a slightly seedy way, as her being "distracting" to Boris or otherwise as being just about sex, but I think it's more holistic than that.
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
My cabinet secretary goes to another school etc etc etc Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
There was an urgent question this morning re the release of the information from the cabinet office saying the cabinet secretary shouldn’t be changed before all the information is released to the Intelligence Committee
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
My cabinet secretary goes to another school etc etc etc Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
There was an urgent question this morning re the release of the information from the cabinet office saying the cabinet secretary shouldn’t be changed before all the information is released to the Intelligence Committee
No response from government
Utter shambles
Given it could take months to release everything and specifically because the Metropolitan Police and CPS will dictate many of the timescales then no job can be on limbo to soothe the obsession of right wing media and hawks.
Any replacement would be under strict Job guidelines and protocols.
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
She is right though and sensible take on business
Meh. It's words. Does anyone seriously think Rayner's political instincts, or the interest groups she intends to serve, are pro-business ?
She pioneered the so-called workers rights bill at the behest of the Unions. A few token watering down of a couple of its elements doesn’t change that.
People might be missing the point. The most important part of what Rayner said is about stability: That the rules won't shift without warning. By and large, businesses (and people) can cope with or manage around policies they don't like, but they can't handle repeated, arbitrary lurches.
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
She's more beholden to left wing ideology and has more populist instincts than Reeves (or Starmer, to the extent one can detect any coherent political philosophy or instincts in him at all). That is a recipe for more tax on business and more arbitrary changes, not less.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
The focus on energy prices is an interesting one. Those are pretty much back at their 2021 prices in real terms this year, and the Govt will meet their manifesto reduction pledge.
If Starmer gets his f*cking comms sorted out (a very big if), it is potentially a winning issue.
(Forecast is 2026, not 2025. I looked over the numbers.)
Petrol is cheaper in cash terms, never mind real terms, than in 2012.
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
My cabinet secretary goes to another school etc etc etc Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
There was an urgent question this morning re the release of the information from the cabinet office saying the cabinet secretary shouldn’t be changed before all the information is released to the Intelligence Committee
No response from government
Utter shambles
Pointless urgent questions daily from a Party with no policy, losing mps by the dozen, rudderless, lacking leadership and fading fast to extinction
No 10 claims it still has cabinet secretary - but won't say who it is, and won't comment on reports Chris Wormald being sacked The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
My cabinet secretary goes to another school etc etc etc Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
There was an urgent question this morning re the release of the information from the cabinet office saying the cabinet secretary shouldn’t be changed before all the information is released to the Intelligence Committee
No response from government
Utter shambles
Pointless urgent questions daily from a Party with no policy, losing mps by the dozen, rudderless, lacking leadership and fading fast to extinction
And pointless evasion and lies from from a Governing Party with no policy, soon to lose mps by the hundreds, rudderless, lacking leadership and fading fast to extinction
Comments
There was one called Kevin Pietersen who was also outrageously talented, and certainly very badly managed by England.
I'm not qualified to talk about football, so have no opinion on Bellingham, but you can't even spell Pietersen's name.
If she is good enough, strong enough so what if she is not universally popular and has wound up old civil service protocols
Get her in
It's interesting and encouraging that Labour are so much more popular than their leader. Leaders are ephemeral whereas brands take a long time to develop.
It suggests there are several ways to grow their popularity.
Get the leader to get back into step with the brand or change the leader to one who can. If I was advising I'd stay with him. He has plenty of time to rebrand himserlf and if he isn't up to it the Party have plenty of time to find someone who can.
It all points to the necessity of getting a decent research department and stop relying on the prejudices of a small group of advisors.
Ref 29 (-2)
Con 19 (+1)
Grn 18 (=)
Lab 16 (=)
LD 11 (=)
SNP 3 (+1)
11/2
Thats what this is all about.
(And attempt to do what China did could only be on a Europe wide scale, anyway.)
The richest 1% hold 10% of the wealth in the UK, which is quite typical of the rich world.
The real outlier is the USA, where the richest 1% hold 30% of wealth.
Back in the Roman Empire, the 1% would have held about 75% of the wealth.
The problem for the Treasury is this impacts growth . Unless people start having more children the worker to pensioner ratio is going to become unsustainable.
Did I get the true history? He couldn’t integrate in the team, he was a disruptive weirdo, so there was no choice but leave him out at height of his playing career?
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/25847459.brighton-seafront-parking-increase-250-per-cent-places/?action=bulletin_click&sent_id=3188355932&secret=618712&nid=1453&ref=ebbn
Net migration is falling, but the population is still going up (and quite a few of the emigrants are people you really want to keep in the country).
Green 1.54
Reform 3.9
Labour 9.4
Labour and Reform drifting. Some optimist has backed the Conservatives in from 1000 to 620.
Is it still there?
No. If someone who is supposed to be invisible is already leading the news as a divisive figure, she can’t have the job.
The difference was with Pietersen he was a Saffer and he always delivered for us, like Jude
Jude is a great player doing a great job.
https://x.com/whoscored/status/2021597934295335189?s=61
Angela Rayner is currently making some huge attacks on Rachel Reeves over business rates, energy bills and hospitality VAT.
Speaking at the nighttime economy summit in Liverpool, Rayner also appears to be doing some major pro-business positioning ahead of the inevitable leadership contest.
She says: "Confidence in politics matters. Businesses need to believe they will be treated fairly. That the rules won't shift without warning. That the long-standing structural issues will finally be addressed, not deferred again."
She says the government needs to drop ideology and be pragmatic to help businesses 👀
Does it? I thought that myth was put to bed.
We’ve done nothing but let people in for six years, and growth had gone no where, so it seems an odd thing to say. As well as telling the electorate we have to continue with hundreds of thousands a year just to keep 0.1% growth.
Bellingham is a seriously good player, but I sense he doesn't fit for Tuchel. Tuchel's problem will be when he leaves Bellingham out and England don't win the WC.
(joke)
Last year he was back and posing with the Trevor Francis statue before the game. He always makes time for the fans.
Like you I’m convinced he wants to play for us in the Premier League and end his career with us. His career will go full circle
Given how parlous our finances were his signing for us has been credited with saving the club from a financial apocalypse. Prior to Tom Wagner (get well soon) we were in dire shape.
It’s tall poppy syndrome. So typical of the U.K. we love to knock success and then relish the eventual redemption story.
You tax something if you want less of it, as a rule.
Won’t please her Union paymasters.
All over social media he’s known as an alcoholic.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/jude-bellingham-explains-new-drinking-celebration-dig-critics-scoring-real-madrid-six-goal-champions-league-monaco/blt8971273f927b4713
If the boats are sorted and the net numbers reduced then the attention of the Reform/Radcliffes turns to communities already here. The danger at that point is that the issue turns from border control to the demonisation of millions who have been here for years. That would be a move from a bit of flag waving nationalism to a hugely more malign thing.
(breaks down sobbing)
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/05/23/angela-rayner-tax-memo-assessed/
Anyway his injury will be what keeps him out of the World Cup.
Social media tittle tattle is just that.
KRO Jude.
Over 25 years, the theory that very high levels of immigration generate high economic growth has proved wanting.
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/2021917325541232764
Angela Rayner of all people has just said that the minimum wage going up is a "challenge" for businesses.
"Too often people see businesses as all the same - they’re not. I talked about the challenges - it’s not even the double whammy, it’s not even the triple whammy, it’s business rates, the challenges on VAT, yes the minimum wage and living wage going up, the cost of energy.
“We’ve got to start looking at the intersectionality of all these challenges and start relieving them.”
https://youtu.be/N-q2kMZwh_o?si=yscGHP0qmK_PPF5o
Fragmented force
Why Europe struggles with capability and readiness
https://thereset.tomtugendhat.org/p/fragmented-force
..European armed forces collectively operate around 180 major weapons systems. The United States operates roughly 30. Europe fields 17 different types of main battle tank, including the Leopard, Leclerc, Challenger, Ariete, PT-91, and several modernised Soviet legacy designs still in service across eastern Europe. The United States fields one..
..The logic is straightforward. Countries that buy together reduce unit costs, standardise equipment, and increase output. SAFE loans are designed to incentivise joint procurement and to rebuild Europe’s industrial base at scale, particularly in ammunition, air defence, drones, and armoured vehicles.
The first tranche of SAFE funding for eight member states was approved in January 2026, with disbursements beginning in March.9 Fifteen EU states are already planning collaborative projects involving Ukraine, both to support Kyiv and to integrate its battle-tested industry into Europe’s supply chains. The EU has set an explicit target that 40 percent of defence procurement should be collaborative rather than national.
This is not about creating a European army. That idea collapses the moment it encounters reality. Allied deployments in Libya and Afghanistan demonstrated how national caveats can paralyse operations: German aircraft restricted from striking, Swedish troops limited in where they could deploy, and political vetoes exercised in real time, all exposed the limits of multinational forces without unified political authority. An army that cannot fight under pressure is not an army.
What Europe is attempting instead is to build a European defence market that can function under stress.
Britain sits awkwardly outside this structure..
Labour politics-wise, this might be a repeat of the prawn cocktail offensive but more likely she has been talking to Andy Burnham.
The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished but, on the issue of the fate of Chris Wormald (see 10.07am), reporters emerged no wiser than when they went in.
The PM’s spokesperson refused to say what is happening to Wormald and refused to say whether or not he is still cabinet secretary.
At one point the spokesperson said that the Cabinet Office was '“still being supervised by the cabinet secretary” – implying that someone is actually doing the job. But, when reporters asked who this mysterious individual was, the spokeperson refused to say.
Guardian live blog
Just incredible. Chaos.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd6geyjd15lo.amp
"Why are ethnic minority groups falling behind on vaccines?"
So there's that.
Unacceptable and shows government has ceased functioning.
I like her, I'd want her fighting my corner if I was in her client group, but I'm not.
She's a battle hardened worldly wise politicial operator.
She's battle hardened in the Union movement.
She's very pragmatic
Very commonsense
Under rate her at your peril.
She has received allot of respect from the non robot more personable types she has shadowed
Very self depricating too.
If Meloni can make an impact from the political right, Ange can do so from the political left
She's not perfect
She doesn't claim to be perfect
She's real
Of course the racists loved it . Worried about trashing his brand he comes out with this non apology .
He can go fxck himself !
The amount of parking with major increases is tiny - something like 3-5%, and only then afaics in summer.
Essentially they are heavily incentivising day trippers to park away from the seafront, so that will be more available for people coming for a couple of hours.
That's quite sensible to increase throughput of visitors, following classic free market principles to charge more for scarce resources in heavy demand.
I'll be interested to see if it works eg for footfall or meals out.
Presumably, it will be good for hotels with their own spaces.
The Islamic regime in Iran has just been elected as Vice-Chair of the U.N. Commission for Social Development, whose priority theme will be promoting democracy, gender equality, and ensuring tolerance and non-violence.
Chair: “I hear no objection.”
https://x.com/UNWatch/status/2021650828814365092
Like all Cabinet Ministers
Thats why every day something new, something enhanced is being announced
Dont believe the paralysis lies from bare faced lying opponents
"sorry my choice of language has offended some people"
Not sorry that I said the wrong thing, not sorry I did the wrong thing, no instead "sorry [... I ...] offended some people".
Sorry I offended/upset/etc you is what you say when you know you need to say sorry, but are not actually sorry. So instead you make it about the other person and apologise for that, rather than anything you did.
It is a non-apology apology.
Just in transition
The fecking lobby should lobby off
If Starmer gets his f*cking comms sorted out (a very big if), it is potentially a winning issue.
(Forecast is 2026, not 2025. I looked over the numbers.)
Look after I'll, old frail people, clear up sick, piss, puke and god knows what else for low pay.
That is far more withy a job than some toff who walks in to a job from private school
Our defence priorities are similar to the Europeans but not the same. We have to defend the GIUK gap (the "Atlantic Bastion"), maintain some kind of global defence to defend shipping and preserve far-flung colonies like the Falklands, and mount an air and space defence. The Europeans don't need a global reach nor a strategic transport command, since they can usually just drive to a site of Russian attack, so they need a lot of tanks and ground attack capability.
So European cooperation is good but it should revolve around integration into the command structures and ensuring that inter-army communication is fast, secure and works. Hardware cooperation is also good (eg a common bullet calibre, which we have via NATO) but it's a nice-to-have rather than a must-have.
No response from government
Utter shambles
Any replacement would be under strict Job guidelines and protocols.
This is just puerile nonsense
If Wormold is being sacked
Sack him