“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
It is absolutely worth keeping a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I can not imagine the former ever being acceptable, but for moral rather than legal reasons. The latter might sometimes be, though it is certainly not ideal.
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals. Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
You are so keen to support peace that you would consider removing a whole population from a region to achieve it. Yet you are so keen for war that every US or Israeli bombing mission is worth it for a minuscule chance that it might lead to a positive change. Some would see you as a man full of contradictions, but I think that would be unfair. There is a common thread here: no sympathy for the civilians affected. If Gazans or Iranians have to suffer for your goals, so be it.
At the moment, Barty is very hard to distinguish from the neocons who backed the Iraq adventure a couple of decades back.
I was pondering wrt Mark Carney. Who are the people who still think the Iraq invasion a good idea? Tony Blair I guess. Any others?
Actually it had more going for it than the current adventure. There was a motivation, amongst other motivations, to build a better future for Iraq. This is just bombing for the sake of it.
It’s worse. It’s bombing as a distraction from things neither Trump nor Netanyahu want to talk about. It’s not easy to find words to describe leaders who are willing to kill large numbers of people for some incidental benefit to themselves. Not on a family forum anyway. I don’t really believe in hell but it is a pretty compelling reason for it to exist.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
It is absolutely worth keeping a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I can not imagine the former ever being acceptable, but for moral rather than legal reasons. The latter might sometimes be, though it is certainly not ideal.
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals. Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
You are so keen to support peace that you would consider removing a whole population from a region to achieve it. Yet you are so keen for war that every US or Israeli bombing mission is worth it for a minuscule chance that it might lead to a positive change. Some would see you as a man full of contradictions, but I think that would be unfair. There is a common thread here: no sympathy for the civilians affected. If Gazans or Iranians have to suffer for your goals, so be it.
At the moment, Barty is very hard to distinguish from the neocons who backed the Iraq adventure a couple of decades back.
I was pondering wrt Mark Carney. Who are the people who still think the Iraq invasion a good idea? Tony Blair I guess. Any others?
Actually it had more going for it than the current adventure. There was a motivation, amongst other motivations, to build a better future for Iraq. This is just bombing for the sake of it.
Ironically at the ‘mission accomplished’ stage of the Iraq war, the Iranians were bricking it and reportedly begging for any kind of disadvantageous deal because they thought they were next, an idea supported by the noisier US hawks. Initially Bush & co ignored the entreaties possibly because Iran was next in line, then their hands were full with the mission very quickly becoming unaccomplished.
Wales was a Blairite (or a Brownite perhaps) but there's a lot of truth in the piece about how Newham was run in his time as Mayor. I moved over here in 2005 and to be honest it wasn't a badly run Borough for all it's no Richmond or Bromley.
The problem, as is so often the case with long serving leaders, they lose the plot and think they have the monopoly on knowledge of how it all works and how it can all be done - I thought Blair in the recent documentary was interesting about that.
Under Fiaz, it's all gone downhill and while Newham has the same issues on funding adult and child social care and SEN as other Councils, the biggest issue has been housing and in particular the cost of temporary accommodation for those on the waiting list which has meant families being moved hundreds of miles from the Borough. Newham now wants 50% of all new developments to be "affordable" but all that does is move the cost impact locally.
It would be fascinating were he to be the Reform candidate for Mayor of Newham - it would likely help Mehmood Mirza and the Newham Independents but to humiliate Fiaz's successor might be tempting for Wales who was deselected by Fiaz and the Pakistani group within Newham Labour at the time (many of whom have decamped since to the Newham Independents).
F1: Incidentally, both Australia and Saudi Arabia might be very iffy for energy harvesting. This could, especially if Saudi gets cancelled, make it seems like the 'problem' (if it exists in Australia) has been solved due to more helpful tracks, only for it to come back at Austria/Spa.
So if there's a wide race pace/qualifying pace divergence this weekend it may recur at those tracks, which would then opening up possible betting opportunities.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
"This man thinks that American foreign policy should not be decided by the American people but by a passage in the bible 2500 years ago. This man should not be in charge of anything. He should be fired immediately"
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
I think the "offer" is more important. IF Badenoch is about "public sector reform", she has to explain what that means in detail. IF she wants to reduce benefits, she will need to be explicit about whose benefits are going to get reduced and by how much and over what timescale.
To be fair, those comments apply equally to Reform, LDs, Greens and even Labour with regard to public spending and tax policies.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
Someone thinks the US will lose this war with Iran. Not particularly revelatory in itself but watched by 3.5 million which suggests a lot of Americans are rooting for this result. I also like the presenter Crystal Ball.
(And as Tommy Docherty once said when asked if United could win the double. "To answer that I'd need crystal balls')
An independent commentator on LBC called Penny Mordant was very scathing of Starmer's failure to fully support the US and Israel and not put assets in the Gulf in anticipation of Bibi's widely anticipated war. She says he is pandering to his back benchers rather than considering the needs of the nation.
So another potential leader bites the dust. The Tories were more gung-ho over Iraq then Blair then when it went pear shaped (as this one will) they were nowhere to be seen.
I now understand the function of Reform UK - it's a political bad bank, where all the absolute worst politicians from all sorts of parties can be safely tucked away so they don;t continue to contaminate the proper political parties. It's an excellent idea, even if results to date have been... mixed.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
A reminder of how Miliband spent his time as an MP:
On 21 December 2010, the Office of David Miliband Limited was formed with Miliband and his wife Louise as directors.
According to the Financial Times, "much of Mr Miliband's time has been spent on his lucrative directorships and speaking roles, which he would be expected to give up if he returned to frontline politics…as of January 2013, David Miliband has made just short of £1m on top of his MP's salary since he failed to win the Labour leadership in the summer of 2010."
According to a March 2013 article in HuffPost, Miliband had earned almost £1m since the 2010 election. The article listed sources of income from speaking (where he had earned up to £20,000 per event), advisory and teaching roles, journalism, gifts, hospitality and overseas visits.
Miliband is one of six members of the Global Advisory Board of Macro Advisory Partners, which advises multinational corporations, sovereign wealth funds, investors and governments.
In January 2012, David Miliband joined the Board of Directors of Mauritius-based private equity group, Indus Basin Holdings. IBH operates Rice Partners in the Punjab region of Pakistan which specialises in managing the end-to-end supply chain for major global users of rice.
According to the Financial Times, "Mr Miliband's jobs include advisory roles with VantagePoint Capital Partners, a Californian group; Oxford Analytica, a UK advisory company; and Indus Basin Holdings, a Pakistani agrochemical group. He is also a member of the advisory board to the Sir Bani Yas academic forum, which is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates. Despite supporting Arsenal, Mr Miliband was vice-chairman and a non-executive director of Sunderland from 2011 until 2013. As a speaker he commands a fee of up to £20,000."
Ask not what you can do for South Shields, ask what South Shields can do for you.
To be honest I am quite relaxed about MPs who can earn serious money from their talents, probably a lot more than most, especially those who believe that MPs should be overpaid if under qualified social workers.
But to be lectured by those who have had such success about the need for ‘hard choices’ is a bit much.
Anyone reckon David Miliband knows much about rice production?
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
As ever, before piping up about economics, Miliband should study it. Specifically, the idiot should read the abundant economic literature, both theoretical and empirical, which shows as conclusively as these things ever are, that increasing taxes and spending reduces the size of an economy over the medium to long term, rather than increasing it as he says he wants.
But of course if he, and the whole of the left (including the Heir-to-Blair right), grasped that basic fact, the much of the economic rationale for Labour crumbles away and they'd have to admit that their whole ideology has been a disaster for the economy.
Wales was a Blairite (or a Brownite perhaps) but there's a lot of truth in the piece about how Newham was run in his time as Mayor. I moved over here in 2005 and to be honest it wasn't a badly run Borough for all it's no Richmond or Bromley.
The problem, as is so often the case with long serving leaders, they lose the plot and think they have the monopoly on knowledge of how it all works and how it can all be done - I thought Blair in the recent documentary was interesting about that.
Under Fiaz, it's all gone downhill and while Newham has the same issues on funding adult and child social care and SEN as other Councils, the biggest issue has been housing and in particular the cost of temporary accommodation for those on the waiting list which has meant families being moved hundreds of miles from the Borough. Newham now wants 50% of all new developments to be "affordable" but all that does is move the cost impact locally.
It would be fascinating were he to be the Reform candidate for Mayor of Newham - it would likely help Mehmood Mirza and the Newham Independents but to humiliate Fiaz's successor might be tempting for Wales who was deselected by Fiaz and the Pakistani group within Newham Labour at the time (many of whom have decamped since to the Newham Independents).
Is this the"big" Labour defection to Reform that was being talked up some weeks ago? Doesn't really fit the bill. It's eight years since he was mayor.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
I think the "offer" is more important. IF Badenoch is about "public sector reform", she has to explain what that means in detail. IF she wants to reduce benefits, she will need to be explicit about whose benefits are going to get reduced and by how much and over what timescale.
To be fair, those comments apply equally to Reform, LDs, Greens and even Labour with regard to public spending and tax policies.
She can't start to discuss Welfare without apologising unequivocally for the Boris wave of NEETS conveniently dumped by Tories on benefit OR signed off as unfit for work without proper and ongoing diagnosis.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
I think the "offer" is more important. IF Badenoch is about "public sector reform", she has to explain what that means in detail. IF she wants to reduce benefits, she will need to be explicit about whose benefits are going to get reduced and by how much and over what timescale.
To be fair, those comments apply equally to Reform, LDs, Greens and even Labour with regard to public spending and tax policies.
With benefits surely it’s only viable to slow the rate of growth or make changes for future recipients or both ?
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
A reminder of how Miliband spent his time as an MP:
On 21 December 2010, the Office of David Miliband Limited was formed with Miliband and his wife Louise as directors.
According to the Financial Times, "much of Mr Miliband's time has been spent on his lucrative directorships and speaking roles, which he would be expected to give up if he returned to frontline politics…as of January 2013, David Miliband has made just short of £1m on top of his MP's salary since he failed to win the Labour leadership in the summer of 2010."
According to a March 2013 article in HuffPost, Miliband had earned almost £1m since the 2010 election. The article listed sources of income from speaking (where he had earned up to £20,000 per event), advisory and teaching roles, journalism, gifts, hospitality and overseas visits.
Miliband is one of six members of the Global Advisory Board of Macro Advisory Partners, which advises multinational corporations, sovereign wealth funds, investors and governments.
In January 2012, David Miliband joined the Board of Directors of Mauritius-based private equity group, Indus Basin Holdings. IBH operates Rice Partners in the Punjab region of Pakistan which specialises in managing the end-to-end supply chain for major global users of rice.
According to the Financial Times, "Mr Miliband's jobs include advisory roles with VantagePoint Capital Partners, a Californian group; Oxford Analytica, a UK advisory company; and Indus Basin Holdings, a Pakistani agrochemical group. He is also a member of the advisory board to the Sir Bani Yas academic forum, which is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates. Despite supporting Arsenal, Mr Miliband was vice-chairman and a non-executive director of Sunderland from 2011 until 2013. As a speaker he commands a fee of up to £20,000."
"Economic activity" and "growth" are effectively synonyms. If you cut govt departments you cut activity, which cuts growth. The hope is that non-govt activity stimulated by lower taxes will then increase to fill the gap. It's not a bad gamble and might work, but there is a lag and during that lag the Govt will be unpopular. Thatcher straddled the gap with North Sea money and selling council homes. What has Milei got during the gap period?
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
The tax burden gets heavier without any improvement in public services because our demographics drive strongly in that direction. Increase in pensioner cohort state pension alone is 0.6% of GDP over 5 years. Add in costs for health and social care, with a declining share in the working age group and why on earth would we expect it to be different.
The failure of a generation of politicians is to not have explained this to us clearly and reset our expectations on tax and spend to something achievable.
"Economic activity" and "growth" are effectively synonyms. If you cut govt departments you cut activity, which cuts growth. The hope is that non-govt activity stimulated by lower taxes will then increase to fill the gap. It's not a bad gamble and might work, but there is a lag and during that lag the Govt will be unpopular. Thatcher straddled the gap with North Sea money and selling council homes. What has Milei got during the gap period?
The World Cup, although of course that is looking like it could get very messi.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
The tax burden gets heavier without any improvement in public services because our demographics drive strongly in that direction. Increase in pensioner cohort state pension alone is 0.6% of GDP over 5 years. Add in costs for health and social care, with a declining share in the working age group and why on earth would we expect it to be different.
The failure of a generation of politicians is to not have explained this to us clearly and reset our expectations on tax and spend to something achievable.
Add on not investing in anything while interest rates were stupidly low between 2010 and 2020.
As I've pointed out multiple times now Governments really should reference 2 separate pots of money, day to day spending in one of them (which should kept to tax income) and investments for which borrowing can be justified..
February's final UK composite PMI output index came in at a strong 53.7, matching January’s 17-month high, though this was a small downward revision from the flash 53.9...
Israel want to invade Turkey. Well who could have predicted that? For those of us who have never lived through a world war this could be the start of the great Nostradamus prediction.
Some reports both Greek and British fighters might have intercepted a drone this morning, although unconfirmed.
One whole drone?
Not exactly the Blitz, is it?
Maybe the Israelis have knocked out most of the Hezbiollah launchers already, probably at the cost of civilian casualties, if the previous pattern is anything to go by.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
The tax burden gets heavier without any improvement in public services because our demographics drive strongly in that direction. Increase in pensioner cohort state pension alone is 0.6% of GDP over 5 years. Add in costs for health and social care, with a declining share in the working age group and why on earth would we expect it to be different.
The failure of a generation of politicians is to not have explained this to us clearly and reset our expectations on tax and spend to something achievable.
Add on not investing in anything while interest rates were stupidly low between 2010 and 2020.
As I've pointed out multiple times now Governments really should reference 2 separate pots of money, day to day spending in one of them (which should kept to tax income) and investments for which borrowing can be justified..
To his credit this is something John McDonnell pointed out.
"Economic activity" and "growth" are effectively synonyms. If you cut govt departments you cut activity, which cuts growth. The hope is that non-govt activity stimulated by lower taxes will then increase to fill the gap. It's not a bad gamble and might work, but there is a lag and during that lag the Govt will be unpopular. Thatcher straddled the gap with North Sea money and selling council homes. What has Milei got during the gap period?
Israel want to invade Turkey. Well who could have predicted that? For those of us who have never lived through a world war this could be the start of the great Nostradamus prediction.
Israel and Turkey have diametrically opposing preferences for Syria, particularly over the Druze in the south. They're also on opposite sides, I think, of the Saudi/UAE rivalry (which itself spreads into Yemen and Sudan).
Chancellor ends decades of German policy: says no reliance on international law with regimes that disregard it, endorses executive action “before it’s too late.” Berlin foreign policy was tied to selling stuff & citing international law, saw Iran deal as commercial opportunity
Israel want to invade Turkey. Well who could have predicted that? For those of us who have never lived through a world war this could be the start of the great Nostradamus prediction.
Its all going a bit Revelation of St John the Divine Ive got a few kg of rice, beans and lentils and a moderately sized solar panel arrangement. Im good.
Apple new 27-inch monitor, $3.3k.....WTF. They are throwing in the stand for free though....how generous.
The remarkable thing is that other prices haven’t changed once to factor in the spec upgrades up (air now has minimum 512gb storage, pro has 1tb, max has 2tb).
What's going on here? My 27" monitor was about £270 a number of years ago.
It is very high res / very high contrast / high refresh rate, but there are LG monitors with very similar specs for about 1/2 the price i.e. still a lot more than £300. Factory calibration is something some people will pay extra for, but I bet inside it is still an LG panel. And for all the claims for pros, the gear the professional movie / tv people use for stuff like colour grading is a totally different beast.
I paid ~£1300 for my current 5k / 120hz display. There is a big difference between those kind of monitors and the £300 ones.
I'll need to check mine for spec, as it was some time ago.
(Checks)
It's actually more than 10 years old, and is a 2k monitor, bought for CAD and photo editing !
The brand is BenQ which is a budget brand, but one of the better ones.
Their 5k/120Hz seems to come in at just under £1000 now.
I really think Badenoch had an excellent opportunity to be of the right and also oppose Trump.
Yet for some inexplicable reason she’s chosen to copy Reform on Iran so yet again the Tories have nothing independent to say.
Mark Carney, erstwhile darling of the rules-based world order, also supports the strikes on Iran.
I think you can in general be an opponent to Trump and Trumpettes, but still support strikes on Iran.
I think it's a mistake by Carney, but I don't find it inexplicable.
His Davos speech pretty much says the US isn't bound by the same rules as everyone else but needed to maintain the fiction that it was for it to work.
Blatantly saying they can do whatever they want, on the whim of a mad President, inevitably creates global instability that is bad for trade, security and peace.
A lot of doom and gloom on here. But it's very easy to get dragged down rabbit holes that align with your current mood.
In other news Lebanon has banned Hezbollah. Rejoice, rejoice at that news. Or maybe not.
If Lebanon actively try to enforce the ban it will lead to a very bloody civil war. Hopefully they'd win, but you can understand why they have avoided the attempt heretofore.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
It's interesting that Miliband mentions the tax base. My sense is that TAX will prove to be the defining issue of the next election. And that, consequently, benefits will feature too, as they are blamed for the rise. People can understand that.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
The tax burden gets heavier without any improvement in public services because our demographics drive strongly in that direction. Increase in pensioner cohort state pension alone is 0.6% of GDP over 5 years. Add in costs for health and social care, with a declining share in the working age group and why on earth would we expect it to be different.
The failure of a generation of politicians is to not have explained this to us clearly and reset our expectations on tax and spend to something achievable.
Miliband's contribution is vacuous in the extreme. Only one bit makes real sense in any way that can be cashed out and it is this:
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
All of which is true of course but is what we call politics, and why it is hard.
My initial response listening to Trump yesterday was "you're no Roosevelt, no Truman or no Eisenhower yourself".
Has anyone pointed out to him that the US notoriously didn’t exactly step up until late in the two world wars? Or that the two wars where we stepped up with them that they started, Iraq and Afghanistan, were disastrous in blood, money, reputation and for which Trump couldn’t even acknowledge graciously.
Basically everything he says is a load of crap, unfortunately he also has the world’s most powerful military under his control.
Krishna, a former management consultant, was appointed the PFEW’s first chief executive in 2024 and is reported to be paid more than £320,000 a year.
£320k a year and still allegedly on the take.
I’ve dealt with so many highly paid people who are on the take/fiddle expenses because they think they aren’t paid enough/have been slighted for not having an expense approved.
Reminder that we still have the ridiculous City of London police. Why?
Presumably it would be fantastically unpopular among the City of London police to merge them with the Met. And can you blame them?
I get that but it still plays into this idea of indulging a medieval charade long past its sell by date.
Are the City of London police dysfunctional? Or, at least, any more so than the average police force?
Britain has some daft bits and pieces left over from a very long history and an absence of revolution in the last 350 years. But why waste time and effort sweeping then away for no gain?
There's plenty enough to be concentrating on improving (like the Met, or a few other police forces) than to waste time on the City of London police.
David Miliband, wealthy man who left the U.K. to coin it in running Tracey Island in the US demands ever higher taxes for the countrymen he left behind.
‘ THE CHOICE BEFORE THE LABOUR PARTY by David Miliband @DMiliband
In Britain we cannot afford the luxury of another failed government. The last party leader to win a majority and last a full term was Tony Blair in 2001. That was a quarter of a century ago. The message since then from the electorate could not be clearer: get your act together. A failure to do so is all that Reform have. A great aspiration weakly implemented – like a strong opinion weakly held - will get nowhere. Ten year plans without the funds and reforms to implement them will not register. Now is the time for our leaders to lead.
One great benefit of being in government is that the hard truths are staring you in the face. For example, the British economy needs booster rockets if it is to get from 1 per cent growth to 2 or anything like 3 per cent.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
The biggest hard truth is that the world has changed in such a way that a manifesto written in 2024 constrains more than it enables. The Government’s approach to this has been contradictory. What we promised not to do has taken precedence over what we said we would do. On the one hand, the Government has held tight to the manifesto, for example on tax and on Europe, in ways that have been challenged by changed reality. On the other hand, the government has jettisoned the five “missions” that were the strategic political backbone of its promise to the electorate.
The right thing to do is to start from the condition of the country and ambitions for the country, and have the policies that emerge in service of our values define the political identity, rather than vice versa. That is how successful governments have broken new ground, and created a new and distinctive politics.
Labour won the last election with the dividing line of change versus no change. That is always an attractive formula. It will be the foundation of Reform’s effort next time. For Labour, as the incumbent party, the dividing line needs to be good change versus bad change. That is in our power to establish.’
The problem Labour has is they’ve now been in power 20 months and we’ve seen no change and no change is in sight.
Thats what riots on the streets, Ukraine, Trump tarrifs, Greenland and now Iran does.
It hides real news, real progress
Labour should create a new Ministry and stick Emily Thornberry in there.
Minister of 24 hours a day sorting Trump and Netanyahu shit out.
Give her total control of comms
She should order HMS Duncan to attack the rogue-State Israel when it eventually gets near.
And destroy 25% of our navy while she’s at it.
Sending the SAS in, extracting Netanyahu and taking him to The Hague would be a better option.
That's a Trump-approved tactic. "Might is Right", human life is worth zilch, the Geneva Conventions are loo roll, and the moral component of war doe snot exist.
I think the two factors that will get Trump blowback are:
1 - He imagines that the USA, the US Navy and Donald Trump bestride the world like colossuses, as in 1950. They do not match his imagination. 2 - He (and the bootlicking munchkins he has surrounded himself with) base their evaluations far too much on what they assume exists, without checking.
Iranian attack on Turkey intercepted. Turkey smashing the absolute shit out of Iran from the NW to follow?
Iran going for the Milwall approach to international strategy....billy no mates.
If you assume whoever is in charge in Tehran doesn't care about the Iranian people or their own existence, there's a logic at work.
They know the West's weakness is oil and gas - attack the energy supplies, force even more diversions to flights (perhaps they will try to get "the Baku Gap" closed to commercial aircraft) and try to cripple the West economically and induce the kind of fuel-supply panic we're prone to if there is any hint of disruption to enrgy supplies.
Reform have steadily toxified themselves over the last 6 months.
At heart, is Farage scared of and doesn't really want to be PM so is self-sabotaging?
I don’t think Farage wants to be PM, he wants money and immediate attention.
Like Boris governing would be real work that he doesn’t want to get involved in
This is a guess, but I think Farage is self-aware enough to know that he'd hate being PM. Everyone who tries the job fails in the end, and the mob he has spent decades whipping up would quickly turn on him.
Boris really thought he could really do the job, and probably still does.
Farage's problem know is the Springtime for Hitler one; a palpable hit that isn't meant to be one. If I were Nigel, I'd find a tame medic to sign me off on a long rest cure at the Goldeneye Estate.
The "Goldeneye estate" reference in this context refers to Anthony Eden buggering off to Jamaica during the Suez crisis. It was in an episode of "The Crown".
On topic. Given all this bad news for Reform, is it not quite impressive that they got 28.7% of the vote? It had occurred to me that some of the Tory vote may have gone to Labour. If so, that's an even more impressive share of the vote for Reform. And, this is in an ultra-safe Labour seat.
They got spot on average in 2024 so they performed in line with polling. In a by election versus a very very unpopular government performing 'at polling' when you are aiming to become the government is a big undershoot. Does not suggest any appeal outside current polling and major concerns at trying to drive turnout in all 632 seats at a GE as opposed to a one off turkey shoot
On that last point, I'd see Reform as the opposite to the Lib Dems (and maybe the Greens, though they're different again). Whereas the Lib Dems blow everyone out of the water at by-elections because they're an easy party to vote for to kick the government, Reform are very much the opposite.
So, I don't think Reform need to worry too much that the voters of Gorton and Denton didn't decide to vote Reform to give Labour a kicking (also, if this by-election had come up in 2008, the Tories wouldn't have stormed to victory, so I'm not sure why Reform were expected to).
Reform’s current problems are somewhat overstated I feel (and the Tories recent successes also).
I think we are all reading the tea leaves for a Reform collapse but right now I don’t see any indicators that suggest they won’t have anything but a very good set of results in May. They are a protest vote and the protest vote usually turns out in local elections, the government are unpopular, as are the official opposition.
They’re stuck on high 20s in the polls (down from low 30s) , but aside from YouGov there’s not been a huge indication that there has been a significant collapse in the gap between the parties.
bondegezou it is incredibly false to quote a 3% figure as the figure for the genocide as the Court explicitly ruled that the genocide solely applied to Srebrenica. The 3% figure is deflated by counting places where genocide did not occur. In the area where genocide did occur it was over 30%.
Paragraphs 277 - 278: “The Court is not convinced that it has been conclusively established that genocide was committed in any of the municipalities other than Srebrenica.”
Paragraph 299: The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica… were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide.
What intent to destroy a group occurred in Gaza? None. It was not genocide.
As just one example of many, the Israeli Minister of Education Yoav Kisch said "Those are animals, they have no right to exist. I am not debating the way it will happen, but they need to be exterminated." And that "until we see hundreds of thousands fleeing Gaza, we, the IDF has not achieved its mission." That seems to me to show intent to destroy a group. Kisch remains a government minister.
F1: Signs your testing went a bit shit, #32: Ladbrokes have suspended the odds on Alonso or Stroll Not To Be Be Classified.
Their To Be Classified odds are 1.85 each.
But you can get 3.4 on Stroll on BetEx, with 2.54 on Alonso.
I am *not* advocating backing those. The rumour they're deliberately just going to run a few laps on purpose may be false but the start could be chaotic, and their cars have a decent chance of breaking down. Plus, it's very easy to lock a break and there are plenty of close walls in Melbourne.
Iranian attack on Turkey intercepted. Turkey smashing the absolute shit out of Iran from the NW to follow?
Iran going for the Milwall approach to international strategy....billy no mates.
If you assume whoever is in charge in Tehran doesn't care about the Iranian people or their own existence, there's a logic at work.
They know the West's weakness is oil and gas - attack the energy supplies, force even more diversions to flights (perhaps they will try to get "the Baku Gap" closed to commercial aircraft) and try to cripple the West economically and induce the kind of fuel-supply panic we're prone to if there is any hint of disruption to enrgy supplies.
The suggestion has been made that one of the Iranian plans for dealing with central government being assassinated is to give regional commanders broad authority to target whatever they like.
So a lot of these attacks might be a result of that strategy - a local commander using the forces at their disposal to hit a target that is available to them. It's kinda a conventional forces equivalent to the famous letter from a British PM* to the Trident submarine commanders as to what they should do in the event that Britain has been reduced to a nuclear wasteland ("hit Slough, just to be sure")
* Does anyone know if the letter written by Truss was ever sent out on patrol?
Krishna, a former management consultant, was appointed the PFEW’s first chief executive in 2024 and is reported to be paid more than £320,000 a year.
£320k a year and still allegedly on the take.
How is the police union leader paid double a Chief Constable (or Prime Minister) salary?
Because the PM's salary is ludicrously low, in the main. Yes there are other benefits (pension for life after, free board etc in Downing Street and the use of Chequers) but the salary is tiny c.f. to what I think it should be.
F1: Signs your testing went a bit shit, #32: Ladbrokes have suspended the odds on Alonso or Stroll Not To Be Be Classified.
Their To Be Classified odds are 1.85 each.
But you can get 3.4 on Stroll on BetEx, with 2.54 on Alonso.
I am *not* advocating backing those. The rumour they're deliberately just going to run a few laps on purpose may be false but the start could be chaotic, and their cars have a decent chance of breaking down. Plus, it's very easy to lock a break and there are plenty of close walls in Melbourne.
And with that, I must be off.
There are things are going badly with a F1 team and things are going BADLY.
The money Stroll spent on Newey looks like a waste given that he seems to be the cause of (at least) some of the issues
Is it my imagination or my age but has the nice taste gone from Kellogs cornflakes. I don't think they are worth buying with the bland taste they now seem to have.
Your Pulitzer is in the post.
May even rate FIFA and Nobel prizes next year
Amazing how easy to get.people to bite however small the offering.
Iranian attack on Turkey intercepted. Turkey smashing the absolute shit out of Iran from the NW to follow?
Iran going for the Milwall approach to international strategy....billy no mates.
That’s something of an understatement!
They’ve bombed all of their neighbours in the last five days, all of whom have well-developed militaries based on Western kit, with impacts on civilian as well as military targets.
Everyone now hates Iran’s guts, including famously neutral Oman and former close friend Qatar.
The mood across the region is one of needing to get the job finished, although they probably want the US heavy bombers to do most of the work inside Iran.
Reminder that we still have the ridiculous City of London police. Why?
Tell me you don’t understand how financial crimes are investigated without telling me you don’t understand financial crimes are investigated.
Do we really need an entirely separate police force for that?
It reinforces the idea that the City of London is something apart from the rest of Britain.
Yes, financial crime at scale is beyond most police forces.
Given their other skills, the Met would probably be quite good at financial crime. Committing it, that is.
This reminds me of the time the my local council wanted to merge two primary schools. One was outstanding, with parents choosing it over private school. The other was dire beyond belief.
The plan was to merge the two. And since the failed school was larger, the new school would be run by the senior management of the failed school. The leadership of the successful school would largely lose their jobs.
AG Ken Paxton's office has asked the Texas Supreme Court to block the court order that extended Dallas County's voting hours until 9 p.m., Bloomberg Law is reporting.
Krishna, a former management consultant, was appointed the PFEW’s first chief executive in 2024 and is reported to be paid more than £320,000 a year.
£320k a year and still allegedly on the take.
How is the police union leader paid double a Chief Constable (or Prime Minister) salary?
Because the PM's salary is ludicrously low, in the main. Yes there are other benefits (pension for life after, free board etc in Downing Street and the use of Chequers) but the salary is tiny c.f. to what I think it should be.
Oh I agree that the PM salary is too low, but it is what it is.
MP salary and ministerial salaries should probably be double what they are. Coincidentally, that would be a great way of quickly fixing the ludicrous £100k tax trap, if MPs themselves got caught in the middle of it!
Iranian attack on Turkey intercepted. Turkey smashing the absolute shit out of Iran from the NW to follow?
Iran going for the Milwall approach to international strategy....billy no mates.
That’s something of an understatement!
They’ve bombed all of their neighbours in the last five days, all of whom have well-developed militaries based on Western kit, with impacts on civilian as well as military targets.
Everyone now hates Iran’s guts, including famously neutral Oman and former close friend Qatar.
The mood across the region is one of needing to get the job finished, although they probably want the US heavy bombers to do most of the work inside Iran.
It seems like they still got plenty of mates in the UK though, particularly at universities.
On topic. Given all this bad news for Reform, is it not quite impressive that they got 28.7% of the vote? It had occurred to me that some of the Tory vote may have gone to Labour. If so, that's an even more impressive share of the vote for Reform. And, this is in an ultra-safe Labour seat.
They got spot on average in 2024 so they performed in line with polling. In a by election versus a very very unpopular government performing 'at polling' when you are aiming to become the government is a big undershoot. Does not suggest any appeal outside current polling and major concerns at trying to drive turnout in all 632 seats at a GE as opposed to a one off turkey shoot
On that last point, I'd see Reform as the opposite to the Lib Dems (and maybe the Greens, though they're different again). Whereas the Lib Dems blow everyone out of the water at by-elections because they're an easy party to vote for to kick the government, Reform are very much the opposite.
So, I don't think Reform need to worry too much that the voters of Gorton and Denton didn't decide to vote Reform to give Labour a kicking (also, if this by-election had come up in 2008, the Tories wouldn't have stormed to victory, so I'm not sure why Reform were expected to).
Reform’s current problems are somewhat overstated I feel (and the Tories recent successes also).
I think we are all reading the tea leaves for a Reform collapse but right now I don’t see any indicators that suggest they won’t have anything but a very good set of results in May. They are a protest vote and the protest vote usually turns out in local elections, the government are unpopular, as are the official opposition.
They’re stuck on high 20s in the polls (down from low 30s) , but aside from YouGov there’s not been a huge indication that there has been a significant collapse in the gap between the parties.
We've a ward by-election tomorrow. Just been to a Mens group where none of the 60+ (age) men I heard were talking about voting Reform. In the brief moment we discussed the election.
Seems like where Sir Keir leads others follow. And, of course, Sir Keir repudiated Carney's famous 'rupture' remarks about the old world order, so is clearly not some knee-jerk anti-Trumpian. Perhaps we have finally to accept the fact that Sir Keir has principles of granite yet an unrivalled sense of the nuances and complexities of a turbulent age.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ6uJE61jy4
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/robin-wales-joins-reform-uk-nigel-farage-newham-labour-b1273398.html
Wales was a Blairite (or a Brownite perhaps) but there's a lot of truth in the piece about how Newham was run in his time as Mayor. I moved over here in 2005 and to be honest it wasn't a badly run Borough for all it's no Richmond or Bromley.
The problem, as is so often the case with long serving leaders, they lose the plot and think they have the monopoly on knowledge of how it all works and how it can all be done - I thought Blair in the recent documentary was interesting about that.
Under Fiaz, it's all gone downhill and while Newham has the same issues on funding adult and child social care and SEN as other Councils, the biggest issue has been housing and in particular the cost of temporary accommodation for those on the waiting list which has meant families being moved hundreds of miles from the Borough. Newham now wants 50% of all new developments to be "affordable" but all that does is move the cost impact locally.
It would be fascinating were he to be the Reform candidate for Mayor of Newham - it would likely help Mehmood Mirza and the Newham Independents but to humiliate Fiaz's successor might be tempting for Wales who was deselected by Fiaz and the Pakistani group within Newham Labour at the time (many of whom have decamped since to the Newham Independents).
So if there's a wide race pace/qualifying pace divergence this weekend it may recur at those tracks, which would then opening up possible betting opportunities.
The tax burden is getting ever heavier, without much evidence of public services improving. Sooner or later the voters are going to turn to this in a big way which will diminish the salience of culture issues. Which party best answers the conundrum will likely benefit.
Kemi, I think, is trying to lay the groundwork for a Tory offer on tax, spending and public sector reform (mantra: "I'm an engineer, I can fix this") but much will depend on how she weathers May and if it gives Reform another spurt of momentum which wipes out her progress, such as it is. But it is a long game - there will, presumably, be fewer pickings to be had in future local election rounds.
Difficult to argue with that.....
To be fair, those comments apply equally to Reform, LDs, Greens and even Labour with regard to public spending and tax policies.
I now understand the function of Reform UK - it's a political bad bank, where all the absolute worst politicians from all sorts of parties can be safely tucked away so they don;t continue to contaminate the proper political parties. It's an excellent idea, even if results to date have been... mixed.
https://bsky.app/profile/thatmarkelliott.bsky.social/post/3mga54nygck2y
https://x.com/tomaskenn/status/2029000905844990272?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
But of course if he, and the whole of the left (including the Heir-to-Blair right), grasped that basic fact, the much of the economic rationale for Labour crumbles away and they'd have to admit that their whole ideology has been a disaster for the economy.
So I won't hold my breath.
More like the size of Radnorshire.
The failure of a generation of politicians is to not have explained this to us clearly and reset our expectations on tax and spend to something achievable.
Yet for some inexplicable reason she’s chosen to copy Reform on Iran so yet again the Tories have nothing independent to say.
Not exactly the Blitz, is it?
As I've pointed out multiple times now Governments really should reference 2 separate pots of money, day to day spending in one of them (which should kept to tax income) and investments for which borrowing can be justified..
At least one "green shoot" is still standing...
February's final UK composite PMI output index came in at a strong 53.7, matching January’s 17-month high, though this was a small downward revision from the flash 53.9...
https://x.com/julianhjessop/status/2029133634263748684
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdlNnUaMjJs
I think you can in general be an opponent to Trump and Trumpettes, but still support strikes on Iran.
I think it's a mistake by Carney, but I don't find it inexplicable.
https://x.com/electodatos/status/2028927532943262054
Encuesta (CB Global Data) - 🗳️Elecciones Presidenciales Argentina🇦🇷:
➡️🟣Javier Milei ganaría en la primera vuelta sin necesidad de una segunda.
🟣Milei: 43,9%✅
🔵Kicillof: 27,7%
⚫️Villarruel: 6,4%
🔵Moreno: 5,5%
🔴Bregman: 5,2%
🟠Schiaretti: 4,6%
🟢Gebel: 1%
⚪️Otros: 5,8%
https://x.com/eylonalevy/status/2028793378964422933?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://x.com/deanogorton/status/2029094708610220332?s=61
Head of Police Federation of England and Wales arrested on suspicion of corruption
Mukund Krishna arrested by City of London police along with two other national board members
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/mar/04/police-federation-of-england-and-wales-chief-executive-mukund-krishna-arrested?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
'To say he's no Churchill is quite an understatement'
Farage says he's 'not surprised' Trump has criticised Starmer over Iran
'There are times to say no the Americans, absolutely', the Reform UK leader admitted
A massive misstep. Reform need to stop allying themselves with Trump when it’s the number one concern voters have about Reform.
Chancellor ends decades of German policy: says no reliance on international law with regimes that disregard it, endorses executive action “before it’s too late.” Berlin foreign policy was tied to selling stuff & citing international law, saw Iran deal as commercial opportunity
Ive got a few kg of rice, beans and lentils and a moderately sized solar panel arrangement. Im good.
In other news Lebanon has banned Hezbollah. Rejoice, rejoice at that news. Or maybe not.
(Checks)
It's actually more than 10 years old, and is a 2k monitor, bought for CAD and photo editing !
The brand is BenQ which is a budget brand, but one of the better ones.
Their 5k/120Hz seems to come in at just under £1000 now.
£320k a year and still allegedly on the take.
Blatantly saying they can do whatever they want, on the whim of a mad President, inevitably creates global instability that is bad for trade, security and peace.
Another hard truth is that we cannot afford to have the public services we want, the defence investment we need (and have promised), plus the commitments to pensioner and welfare benefits and the promise of a functioning social care system, on the current tax base.
All of which is true of course but is what we call politics, and why it is hard.
Basically everything he says is a load of crap, unfortunately he also has the world’s most powerful military under his control.
Britain has some daft bits and pieces left over from a very long history and an absence of revolution in the last 350 years. But why waste time and effort sweeping then away for no gain?
There's plenty enough to be concentrating on improving (like the Met, or a few other police forces) than to waste time on the City of London police.
I think the two factors that will get Trump blowback are:
1 - He imagines that the USA, the US Navy and Donald Trump bestride the world like colossuses, as in 1950. They do not match his imagination.
2 - He (and the bootlicking munchkins he has surrounded himself with) base their evaluations far too much on what they assume exists, without checking.
They know the West's weakness is oil and gas - attack the energy supplies, force even more diversions to flights (perhaps they will try to get "the Baku Gap" closed to commercial aircraft) and try to cripple the West economically and induce the kind of fuel-supply panic we're prone to if there is any hint of disruption to enrgy supplies.
It reinforces the idea that the City of London is something apart from the rest of Britain.
I think we are all reading the tea leaves for a Reform collapse but right now I don’t see any indicators that suggest they won’t have anything but a very good set of results in May. They are a protest vote and the protest vote usually turns out in local elections, the government are unpopular, as are the official opposition.
They’re stuck on high 20s in the polls (down from low 30s) , but aside from YouGov there’s not been a huge indication that there has been a significant collapse in the gap between the parties.
As just one example of many, the Israeli Minister of Education Yoav Kisch said "Those are animals, they have no right to exist. I am not debating the way it will happen, but they need to be exterminated." And that "until we see hundreds of thousands fleeing Gaza, we, the IDF has not achieved its mission." That seems to me to show intent to destroy a group. Kisch remains a government minister.
https://bsky.app/profile/sarobertson.bsky.social/post/3mg6ua5njax2k
Ladbrokes have suspended the odds on Alonso or Stroll Not To Be Be Classified.
Their To Be Classified odds are 1.85 each.
But you can get 3.4 on Stroll on BetEx, with 2.54 on Alonso.
I am *not* advocating backing those. The rumour they're deliberately just going to run a few laps on purpose may be false but the start could be chaotic, and their cars have a decent chance of breaking down. Plus, it's very easy to lock a break and there are plenty of close walls in Melbourne.
And with that, I must be off.
So a lot of these attacks might be a result of that strategy - a local commander using the forces at their disposal to hit a target that is available to them. It's kinda a conventional forces equivalent to the famous letter from a British PM* to the Trident submarine commanders as to what they should do in the event that Britain has been reduced to a nuclear wasteland ("hit Slough, just to be sure")
* Does anyone know if the letter written by Truss was ever sent out on patrol?
The money Stroll spent on Newey looks like a waste given that he seems to be the cause of (at least) some of the issues
Corruption, rape, violence, racism, mainly.
It’s more a question of why we have the ridiculous Met…
They’ve bombed all of their neighbours in the last five days, all of whom have well-developed militaries based on Western kit, with impacts on civilian as well as military targets.
Everyone now hates Iran’s guts, including famously neutral Oman and former close friend Qatar.
The mood across the region is one of needing to get the job finished, although they probably want the US heavy bombers to do most of the work inside Iran.
On the same basis Starmer may not mind being told by Trump "He's no Churchill"
This reminds me of the time the my local council wanted to merge two primary schools. One was outstanding, with parents choosing it over private school. The other was dire beyond belief.
The plan was to merge the two. And since the failed school was larger, the new school would be run by the senior management of the failed school. The leadership of the successful school would largely lose their jobs.
AG Ken Paxton's office has asked the Texas Supreme Court to block the court order that extended Dallas County's voting hours until 9 p.m., Bloomberg Law is reporting.
https://x.com/RyanAutullo/status/2029016802349486121
On brand for MAGA.
MP salary and ministerial salaries should probably be double what they are. Coincidentally, that would be a great way of quickly fixing the ludicrous £100k tax trap, if MPs themselves got caught in the middle of it!