I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Is it true or false? Or is there a wider range of options than 'worked' and 'not worked'?
False, I'd have thought. And yes to the second. But it's the phrase that stands out.
It's never "rent controls address symptoms not the cause" or "you can't fix prices in a free market without distorting supply and demand and making things worse".
It's always " ... have never worked wherever they've been tried".
I think someone once said it and it's one of those that took off and acquired a life of its own. Like commonly happens in sports punditry. Wealth taxes are another one. They've also (apparently) never worked wherever they've been tried.
Perhaps it's a spillover from the master sentiment that communism has never ... etc. Which is true of course.
Why don't you find out? We have access to AI - ask it to find some successful examples of rent controls being introduced.
I've just asked it who first said "rent controls have never worked whenever they've been tried".
No joy.
OK, why don't you ask it the question I proposed? AI doesn't have a right-wing bias, it may not provide a flawless summary but it'll provide a decent beginning for your research. I don't understand why you're so determined to remain ignorant.
I just did it on Chat GPT.
Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck in the 1970s:
Rent control is “the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”
Khan seems to attract the same level of visceral contempt among some usually reserved for Starmer or Reeves.
One might argue it's because he's had the temerity to beat the Conservatives three times but this is London and while you could argue it was a Conservative city as recently as 1992 (and Boris won twice, albeit against a discredited Ken Livingstone), it is no longer.
It's probably not unreasonable to question the calibre of the losing Conservative candidates and Susan Hall won the primary last time, arguably against the odds, and also won the election before the ballot boxes were open and the results counted. Unfortunately, once the boxes were open, the democratic process told a different story.
Those who think Seb Coe or James Cleverley is the answer probably haven't worked out the question. The local elections will be fascinating inasmuch as they will likely show the political fragmentation of London between five political parties (six if you count the various Independents). The notion Khan could be re-elected on 30% of the vote isn't fanciful IF we retain FPTP for the 2028 contest. His position would be likely improved if the supplementary vote were re-introduced and especially if Reform finished second as I suspect the bulk of the LD and Green second preferences would go to him rather than to Laila Cunningham or to the Conservative hopeful.
If we had SV Coe or Cleverly could get LD and Reform preferences.
Cunningham would get barely any LD preferences and no more than half the Tory preferences.
Even on FPTP if the Greens eat into the Khan vote he could be vulnerable if a centrist Tory could squeeze the LD vote and win swing voters.
A Tory could still win London if relatively moderate, a Reformer could not. Even now Reform trail 3rd or even 4th in London as they lead polls UK wide
I see Marco Rubio is playing the good cop to Vance's bad cop routine on Europe.
Not working, actions speak louder than words.
There is a very good thread on that here. It's essentially self serving (for nomination positioning) and means next to nothing in terms of actual administration policy.
There will be people who are understandably desperate to hear this, but it's important to be clear-eyed about Rubio himself and what the Trump administration is doing. 🧵 https://x.com/ruth_deyermond/status/2022654839550021959
Rutte, of course, will grasp it like a drowning man seizing a rotten branch. Starmer too, perhaps ?
Rutter is such a public butt licker that I am beginning to think that this is an agreed good cop - bad cop - rimming cop agreed approach, amongst non-Trump NATO.
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
The problem with most systems of rent control is that they favour insiders, at the expense of outsiders. Rents are usually kept below market levels, and are combined with security of tenure, which makes it hard to remove poor tenants.
That can be great for existing tenants, but terrible for new tenants. No landlord is going to offer property for letting, if he has to charge below market rents, and is stuck with a perpetual tenant. New properties for letting will however, be offered by the kind of landlord who sends men with baseball bats round to collect the rent and evict tenants.
Where limited rent control, with limited security of tenure works, is in the commercial sector. Courts can determine an open market rent, and if a landlord wants possession from a good tenant, they must pay compensation.
But, it is very easy to evict a bad commercial tenant, often by just locking them out. Whereas, with residential tenancies, it can take a year to evict a tenant who has stopped paying rent.
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
What had happened in places that still have them is that they have either
1) raised the “controlled rent” level to above or around the market price, making them irrelevant. 2) allowed newer properties to not have the controlled prices, so the rent controlled section of the market has shrunk to irrelevance.
Method (1) was used for abolition (in effect) of rent controls in many places.
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Is it true or false? Or is there a wider range of options than 'worked' and 'not worked'?
False, I'd have thought. And yes to the second. But it's the phrase that stands out.
It's never "rent controls address symptoms not the cause" or "you can't fix prices in a free market without distorting supply and demand and making things worse".
It's always " ... have never worked wherever they've been tried".
I think someone once said it and it's one of those that took off and acquired a life of its own. Like commonly happens in sports punditry. Wealth taxes are another one. They've also (apparently) never worked wherever they've been tried.
Perhaps it's a spillover from the master sentiment that communism has never ... etc. Which is true of course.
Why don't you find out? We have access to AI - ask it to find some successful examples of rent controls being introduced.
I've just asked it who first said "rent controls have never worked whenever they've been tried".
No joy.
OK, why don't you ask it the question I proposed? AI doesn't have a right-wing bias, it may not provide a flawless summary but it'll provide a decent beginning for your research. I don't understand why you're so determined to remain ignorant.
It gives a few. Germany, Canada, Austria, France ... and so on. But I don't trust AI tbh. And like I say it's the phrase that I'm interested in.
Where did you pick it up from? Perhaps we can trace back.
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
What had happened in places that still have them is that they have either
1) raised the “controlled rent” level to above or around the market price, making them irrelevant. 2) allowed newer properties to not have the controlled prices, so the rent controlled section of the market has shrunk to irrelevance.
Method (1) was used for abolition (in effect) of rent controls in many places.
The odds on her being the Democrat candidate is 11.5 (9%) on Betfair. Second favourite behind Newsom.
I think the dream ticket for the Dems is Newsom with AOC as his VP. Newsom provides the look (white, male, tall, presidential) and a strategy that can widen the appeal beyond the core. AOC provides the fire and energy that will get out the core vote. Width and depth.
Dream ticket for Vance you mean! An arrogant rich California Democrat as their nominee with a far left woke Israel hater from New York as his running mate is guaranteed to turn middle America off.
Buttigieg or Shapiro or Beshear might worry Vance and the GOP, Newsom and AOC would not
Almost anyone could beat Vance, assuming fair election in 2028.
Perhaps if Trump's approval ratings continue to be in the toilet but Vance is clever and ruthless and grew up in poverty in Ohio, which was the ultimate swing state until 2020 and got himself to the 2nd most powerful job in the land by cunning and hard work.
Gavin Newsom's father meanwhile was attorney for Getty Oil and AOC's father was an architect and neither have shown any ability to connect with swing voters in the rustbelt, they have only been elected in safe Democrat states.
AOC has dropped her pronouns and has adopted Bernie Sanders priorities, in particular, cost of living.
A 2025 AtlasIntel poll found her to be one of only three major political leaders with a net positive image, with 46% of Americans viewing her positively compared to 44% negatively.
AOC recently toured Arizona and Nevada with Bernie Sanders, where they attracted record-breaking crowds (including 34,000 in Denver, Colorado).
A July 2025 poll of "Biden skippers"—voters in battleground states who sat out the 2024 election—found that 78% had a favorable view of Bernie Sanders, the highest of any Democratic-aligned figure.
I'm not suggesting her for President - too young, short, woman, brown - but as a VP complement to Newsom (tall, white, male, presidential). It's a ticket that reaches Bernie Sanders supporters. AOC is young enough to bide her time as VP for two terms if necessary.
It's a strong combination.
I think AOC would be a good VP candidate although she may choose to bide her time so that she can run either in 2032/2036 when she would be (I think) 45-50.
AOC + Newsom would be a disaster - reinforces the coastal state narrative
I think State of origen is a bit exagerrated in importance. How much did having Walz on the ticket help Harris in the Midwest?
Trump is New York to the core yet wins in Alabama, and does anyone realistically think Buttigeig could flip Indiana or Beshar flip Kentucky?
Comparing the two Trump wins:
Minnesota 2016 Clinton +1.52% 2024 Harris +4.24%
Michigan 2016 Trump +0.23% 2024 Trump +1.42%
Pennsylvania 2016 Trump +0.72% 2024 Trump +1.71%
Wisconsin 2016 Trump +0.77% 2024 Trump +0.86%
Compared with California
2016 Clinton +30.11% 2024 Harris +20.24%
Suggests that Walz did help in the rust belt states, especially his home Minnesota.
Certainly more than Harris did in either California or adjacent Nevada and Arizona.
I am not saying that there is no effect (though it does seem only significant in home state) just that it is only one consideration amongst many.
I am a big AOC fan but I think the Dems need a more centrist candidate in 2028.
The issue is more with Newsom and AOC both appealing to a core democrat audience. They need someone who can reach out to the Midwest
The problem with AOC is that she, like a lot of left wing Democrats, doesn't understand basic economics.
The solution to a housing crisis is more housing, not attempting to suppress prices (which results in less housing).
The "Abundance" Democrats get this. Newsom, while a slimy toad, also gets this.
AOC, Mamdami, Sanders and much of the Democrat left do not.
Is that true of Mamdani ? For a socialist, he seems relatively pragmatic - and is planning to finance quite a lot of home construction.
Not my politics, but he's more real world than quite a lot of the US left.
Sadly, yes.
I find it staggering that a policy that has been tried thousands upon thousands of times, and yet has worked exactly... never... keeps being trotted out.
The old joke is that not even economists understand economics, which hardly incentivises anyone else to learn about it as they think it is all just vibes and ideological theorising.
I don't understand economics and so don't think I could ever justifiably seem to help run even a local council, but it is qutie notable how economic ideas from politicians very often end up with 'It sounds like it might work/it has the right motivation' as a primary justiication. Or appear to be based on an assumption that economic factors can be perfectly controlled by political decisions, adding x here or regulating y there, with near-immediate and direct correlation, which can also be swiftly reversed if you wanted.
IDK, that seems implausible to me, but hey, I'm not an economist.
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
What had happened in places that still have them is that they have either
1) raised the “controlled rent” level to above or around the market price, making them irrelevant. 2) allowed newer properties to not have the controlled prices, so the rent controlled section of the market has shrunk to irrelevance.
Method (1) was used for abolition (in effect) of rent controls in many places.
Where have you read this?
Try reading for yourself. The subject is easy to research - plenty of papers published.
An interesting meta-study (paper analysing other research) -
Kristi Noem: "When it gets to Election Day, we've been proactive to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country."
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
The problem with most systems of rent control is that they favour insiders, at the expense of outsiders. Rents are usually kept below market levels, and are combined with security of tenure, which makes it hard to remove poor tenants.
That can be great for existing tenants, but terrible for new tenants. No landlord is going to offer property for letting, if he has to charge below market rents, and is stuck with a perpetual tenant. New properties for letting will however, be offered by the kind of landlord who sends men with baseball bats round to collect the rent and evict tenants.
Where limited rent control, with limited security of tenure works, is in the commercial sector. Courts can determine an open market rent, and if a landlord wants possession from a good tenant, they must pay compensation.
But, it is very easy to evict a bad commercial tenant, often by just locking them out. Whereas, with residential tenancies, it can take a year to evict a tenant who has stopped paying rent.
Ok so that is to highlight potential problems with it. Almost everything causes potential problems. The question is are the potential problems caused worse than the actual problems potentially mitigated. I submit, given our cost of living crisis and malfunctioning approach to residential property, that it's worth looking at and certainly shouldn't be dismissed out of hand with the mass parroting of "never worked wherever it's been tried".
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
The problem with most systems of rent control is that they favour insiders, at the expense of outsiders. Rents are usually kept below market levels, and are combined with security of tenure, which makes it hard to remove poor tenants.
That can be great for existing tenants, but terrible for new tenants. No landlord is going to offer property for letting, if he has to charge below market rents, and is stuck with a perpetual tenant. New properties for letting will however, be offered by the kind of landlord who sends men with baseball bats round to collect the rent and evict tenants.
Where limited rent control, with limited security of tenure works, is in the commercial sector. Courts can determine an open market rent, and if a landlord wants possession from a good tenant, they must pay compensation.
But, it is very easy to evict a bad commercial tenant, often by just locking them out. Whereas, with residential tenancies, it can take a year to evict a tenant who has stopped paying rent.
Ok so that is to highlight potential problems with it. Almost everything causes potential problems. The question is are the potential problems caused worse than the actual problems potentially mitigated. I submit, given our cost of living crisis and malfunctioning approach to residential property, that it's worth looking at and certainly shouldn't be dismissed out of hand with the mass parroting of "never worked wherever it's been tried".
I am not a rugby fan, but a long time ago in the early 1960's I was on police duty at Murrayfield for Scotland v England and as we had to watch the crowd I didn't see any of it
I remember, many years ago, the whole crowd at Murrayfield singing the Z cars theme tune as the police deployed at the edge of the pitch.
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
What had happened in places that still have them is that they have either
1) raised the “controlled rent” level to above or around the market price, making them irrelevant. 2) allowed newer properties to not have the controlled prices, so the rent controlled section of the market has shrunk to irrelevance.
Method (1) was used for abolition (in effect) of rent controls in many places.
Where have you read this?
Try reading for yourself. The subject is easy to research - plenty of papers published.
An interesting meta-study (paper analysing other research) -
All well and good. But there is plenty of stuff arguing otherwise. Kallin and Slater for example. They are (some say) the Lennon and McCartney of this area. Definitely worth a look anyway.
I think "rent controls have never worked whenever and wherever they've been tried" has just become a thing that gets said whenever and wherever rent controls are mooted.
Prices are information.
If prices are rising, it is telling you there is a shortage of something. Those rising prices create an incentive for people to produce more of said thing: say food or houses or whatever
Listen to the prices, don't try and drown them out.
That is indeed a core economic truth that one is a fool to ignore. But it doesn't mean rent controls are always in practice a no-no. They are quite common across Europe, I believe?
The problem with most systems of rent control is that they favour insiders, at the expense of outsiders. Rents are usually kept below market levels, and are combined with security of tenure, which makes it hard to remove poor tenants.
That can be great for existing tenants, but terrible for new tenants. No landlord is going to offer property for letting, if he has to charge below market rents, and is stuck with a perpetual tenant. New properties for letting will however, be offered by the kind of landlord who sends men with baseball bats round to collect the rent and evict tenants.
Where limited rent control, with limited security of tenure works, is in the commercial sector. Courts can determine an open market rent, and if a landlord wants possession from a good tenant, they must pay compensation.
But, it is very easy to evict a bad commercial tenant, often by just locking them out. Whereas, with residential tenancies, it can take a year to evict a tenant who has stopped paying rent.
Ok so that is to highlight potential problems with it. Almost everything causes potential problems. The question is are the potential problems caused worse than the actual problems potentially mitigated. I submit, given our cost of living crisis and malfunctioning approach to residential property, that it's worth looking at and certainly shouldn't be dismissed out of hand with the mass parroting of "never worked wherever it's been tried".
ChatGPT is behind these days. Claude and Gemini got it right and basically said what a stupid question are you a moron.
If they weren't more polite than you suggest, they probably won't be giving very good customer satisfaction. Most of us are morons, if time spent in IT support is any guide.
Has anyone called them the Reform-A-Tory Party yet?
Gemini just, almost, suggested that to me as its own original pun
#Reform-the-crap-bits-of-the-tory-party.
The creatures outside looked from Reform to Tory, and from Tory to Reform, and from Reform to Tory again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Cleverly will be Tory Leader by July, why would he want it
Badenoch could always apply, she likes to stay within the M25 and 3 days a week is her ideal job.
Seb Coe. Great athlete, not as good as Ovett but he would want his financial handshakes from IOC vetted believe me that organisation is toxic
Jeremy Hunt might be a decent shout or Michael Green. He's got the experience of 4 people in London circles
More utter nonsense and fake news
Kemi was at the Welsh conservative conference here in Llandudno yesterday
She is also going to Scotland and campaigning across the country for the locals
And she will be in post long after Starmer
We've yet to really work out (or have our expectations managed concerning) what a "good" Conservative result looks like.
In London, it could be a very mixed bag - successes in Barnet and Westminster but offset by losses in places like Bromley and Bexley and no progress against the LDs in south west London.
Given 40% of the seats being contested are in London, it can't be written off with simply "it's not a Conservative area". A party with aspirations to regain power in 2029 has to be making progress in London and elsewhere not treading water or going backward.
Cleverly will be Tory Leader by July, why would he want it
Badenoch could always apply, she likes to stay within the M25 and 3 days a week is her ideal job.
Seb Coe. Great athlete, not as good as Ovett but he would want his financial handshakes from IOC vetted believe me that organisation is toxic
Jeremy Hunt might be a decent shout or Michael Green. He's got the experience of 4 people in London circles
More utter nonsense and fake news
Kemi was at the Welsh conservative conference here in Llandudno yesterday
She is also going to Scotland and campaigning across the country for the locals
And she will be in post long after Starmer
We've yet to really work out (or have our expectations managed concerning) what a "good" Conservative result looks like.
In London, it could be a very mixed bag - successes in Barnet and Westminster but offset by losses in places like Bromley and Bexley and no progress against the LDs in south west London.
Given 40% of the seats being contested are in London, it can't be written off with simply "it's not a Conservative area". A party with aspirations to regain power in 2029 has to be making progress in London and elsewhere not treading water or going backward.
Cleverly will be Tory Leader by July, why would he want it
Badenoch could always apply, she likes to stay within the M25 and 3 days a week is her ideal job.
Seb Coe. Great athlete, not as good as Ovett but he would want his financial handshakes from IOC vetted believe me that organisation is toxic
Jeremy Hunt might be a decent shout or Michael Green. He's got the experience of 4 people in London circles
More utter nonsense and fake news
Kemi was at the Welsh conservative conference here in Llandudno yesterday
She is also going to Scotland and campaigning across the country for the locals
And she will be in post long after Starmer
We've yet to really work out (or have our expectations managed concerning) what a "good" Conservative result looks like.
In London, it could be a very mixed bag - successes in Barnet and Westminster but offset by losses in places like Bromley and Bexley and no progress against the LDs in south west London.
Given 40% of the seats being contested are in London, it can't be written off with simply "it's not a Conservative area". A party with aspirations to regain power in 2029 has to be making progress in London and elsewhere not treading water or going backward.
Cleverly will be Tory Leader by July, why would he want it
Badenoch could always apply, she likes to stay within the M25 and 3 days a week is her ideal job.
Seb Coe. Great athlete, not as good as Ovett but he would want his financial handshakes from IOC vetted believe me that organisation is toxic
Jeremy Hunt might be a decent shout or Michael Green. He's got the experience of 4 people in London circles
More utter nonsense and fake news
Kemi was at the Welsh conservative conference here in Llandudno yesterday
She is also going to Scotland and campaigning across the country for the locals
And she will be in post long after Starmer
We've yet to really work out (or have our expectations managed concerning) what a "good" Conservative result looks like.
In London, it could be a very mixed bag - successes in Barnet and Westminster but offset by losses in places like Bromley and Bexley and no progress against the LDs in south west London.
Given 40% of the seats being contested are in London, it can't be written off with simply "it's not a Conservative area". A party with aspirations to regain power in 2029 has to be making progress in London and elsewhere not treading water or going backward.
Comments
Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck in the 1970s:
Rent control is “the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”
Love it.
Cunningham would get barely any LD preferences and no more than half the Tory preferences.
Even on FPTP if the Greens eat into the Khan vote he could be vulnerable if a centrist Tory could squeeze the LD vote and win swing voters.
A Tory could still win London if relatively moderate, a Reformer could not. Even now Reform trail 3rd or even 4th in London as they lead polls UK wide
That can be great for existing tenants, but terrible for new tenants. No landlord is going to offer property for letting, if he has to charge below market rents, and is stuck with a perpetual tenant. New properties for letting will however, be offered by the kind of landlord who sends men with baseball bats round to collect the rent and evict tenants.
Where limited rent control, with limited security of tenure works, is in the commercial sector. Courts can determine an open market rent, and if a landlord wants possession from a good tenant, they must pay compensation.
But, it is very easy to evict a bad commercial tenant, often by just locking them out. Whereas, with residential tenancies, it can take a year to evict a tenant who has stopped paying rent.
Scotland win the Calcutta Cup! 🏴
They now sit top of the Six Nations standings... 👀
1) raised the “controlled rent” level to above or around the market price, making them irrelevant.
2) allowed newer properties to not have the controlled prices, so the rent controlled section of the market has shrunk to irrelevance.
Method (1) was used for abolition (in effect) of rent controls in many places.
Where did you pick it up from? Perhaps we can trace back.
The sass of the person writing the minute by minute on England v Scotland is to be admired
https://bsky.app/profile/salvey1.bsky.social/post/3metkbdec7k2p
Cleverly will be Tory Leader by July, why would he want it
Badenoch could always apply, she likes to stay within the M25 and 3 days a week is her ideal job.
Seb Coe. Great athlete, not as good as Ovett but he would want his financial handshakes from IOC vetted believe me that organisation is toxic
Jeremy Hunt might be a decent shout or Michael Green. He's got the experience of 4 people in London circles
An interesting meta-study (paper analysing other research) -
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Rent-Control-Does-it-work-Dr-Konstantin-A.-Kholodilin.pdf
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
Here Noem says the quiet part out loud.
Trump's DHS is not a traditional Cabinet agency, a part of the U.S. government established and constrained by laws, regulations, and court rulings.
DHS is now an arm of Trump and MAGA, used against citizens the administration disfavors.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
Kristi Noem: "When it gets to Election Day, we've been proactive to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country."
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2022713213675049336
I just don't see it myself.
https://x.com/anassarwar/status/2022663294553571471?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
@MassieforKY
·
1h
They’ve already spent $3.5 million against me and we’re still 95 days from Election Day.
https://x.com/MassieforKY/status/2022728659975524414
Kemi was at the Welsh conservative conference here in Llandudno yesterday
She is also going to Scotland and campaigning across the country for the locals
And she will be in post long after Starmer
Gemini just, almost, suggested that to me as its own original pun
There is a Labour newspaper sting coming on Kemi
Shes been lured in to demanding all kind of repercussions for others, the heat will be on her late April...
"Q: “if I vote for you, you won’t live here right?
❌FALSE.
I'm already in Gorton & Denton every day. If you elect me I will live here, in the seat."
Really? Hmmm....
All those moaning about it should have seen the shocking refereeing decisions in this game which could have robbed Newcastle of the win .
Justice prevailed and Newcastle won .
Credit where credit's due.
NEW THREAD
@Keir_Starmer
I will always fight for what’s best for my country, for the British people, and for our way of life.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/2022708392674894280
====
So why the f are we not re-arming at scale?
I’m sure @Brixian59 would agree
In London, it could be a very mixed bag - successes in Barnet and Westminster but offset by losses in places like Bromley and Bexley and no progress against the LDs in south west London.
Given 40% of the seats being contested are in London, it can't be written off with simply "it's not a Conservative area". A party with aspirations to regain power in 2029 has to be making progress in London and elsewhere not treading water or going backward.
PS
We definitely need VAR in the Efl