“Although President Donald Trump says he has ‘destroyed 100% of Iran’s Military Capability’, the 0% that remains is playing havoc with the global economy.” -The Economist
Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand.
As Bob said, when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose.
Rape victims to be tagged after their attacker is released
MoJ to pilot UK’s first ‘proximity tagging scheme’ to keep offenders away from victims
Rape and domestic abuse victims will be tracked to prevent them ever coming into contact with their attackers under Britain’s biggest-ever expansion of tagging.
The Ministry of Justice is to pilot the UK’s first deployment of “proximity tagging”, which enables probation officers to know 24/7 if an offender comes within a pre-set distance of a victim of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault.
The victim will have a GPS locator in their phone while the offender will be tagged so that probation or police officers can intervene if the abuser approaches their location.
The £5m pilot, expected to be launched later this year, is part of an expansion of tagging by Labour to protect the public as it increases the use of community punishments as an alternative to prison.
Under Sir Keir Starmer’s sentencing reforms, criminals will be freed as little as a third of the way through their sentence if they demonstrate good behaviour and participate in work, training, education and rehabilitation schemes.
From September, when the new sentencing system kicks in, Lord Timpson, the prisons minister, said there would be a “presumption” that every offender leaving jail will be tagged as soon as they leave the prison gates. At present, they are only tagged when the contractor Serco attends their home after their release.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
She's actually as is Bridget Phillipson the polar opposite of that.
She believes those in genuine need should be supported but should if they can work.
Now remind us who was it created millions of NEETS, millions on benefits without proper due diligence.
Boris Truss Sunak
One thing Rayner and Phillipson can't be accused of is sitting back and being hand fed with a silver spoon or state spoon.
Neither either flown in and out as a baby, flown in and out to do exams as a teenager, faking websites, faking American University places.
Both had unimaginablely bad childhoods
Both have massively over achieved on ability and merit
Even the Grocers daughter would be proud to associate with that.
Underestimate them at your peril.
Anyone thinking of voting Labour , LD, Green even PC or SNP in a tight marginal who has to vote tactically to keep a very right wing Tory government or Reform out, is more likely to vote for Angela than Starmer, not less.
The Tories should fear Angela far more than Starmer she will galvanise centre left progressives in a way he can't.
The Tories only hope v Ange is to try to recapture the sane one nation Tory vote. Cleverly would worry Ange far more than Badenoch. Ange will eat her up and spit her out on debate. A political beast honed since her teens in the northern politics a bit of Barbara Castle about her.
Not polite like Keir, no fear of the mysogonist typical Tory clap trap...
The Tories biggest nightmare.
In your imagination
Rayner would be a disaster for the country economically as labour lurches left and the bond markets run away
I simply care too much about our Country to let Rayner lose on it, though her closeness to Sharon Graham and Unite most certainly would see the North Sea oil and gas fields open up
Kemi v Ange as you put it would be a contrast in styles and Kemi would win the economy, defence and immigration hands down
Rayner would also hand more taxpayers money to the public sector while doing nothing for the Private Sector.
She’d be a total disaster.
But we may get three years of her prior to 2029 to live it.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No domestic economy; no fertiliser production; no desalination etc. The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to view the actions of the US and Israel as anything other than naked and indefensible aggression. We really shouldn't be playing any role in supporting their actions.
Totally. This Dumb/Smart USA/Israel axis is a far bigger threat to the peace and prosperity of the region and the wider world than the Islamic Republic of Iran, repulsive regime that they are. They were miles off a nuclear weapon and a successor to the foolishly ripped up Obama Deal could have been done. Why Donald Trump projects and is reported as a 'dealmaker' is a complete mystery. Has he actually done any important sustainable deals with other countries since he re-took office? Can't recall any. It's all bluster and the moniker is yet more sane-washing. Report the truth please, media. There's an imbecile in the White House and every geopolitical risk you can think of remains heightened as long as that's the case.
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
Entirely moot point as it all ran out 7 years ago.
We spoke to Dr Aled Jones, director of the Global Resource Observatory that produced the research. “The BBC headline was a bit misleading”, he says.
The UK would only run out if it stopped – or was prevented from – importing any oil, gas or coal, and if it somehow became too expensive to exploit the UK’s remaining reserves.
I wonder if the year 2014 had anything to do with the ‘poor journalism’.
Great to see Aled Jones has another string to his bow though.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Which leads to people thinking that more money from the government is always the answer.
And people thinking that they shouldn't only be net recipients of money from the state when they are under 20 and over 60 but also the forty years in between.
Which leads to £100bn of tax receipts being used to pay the debt on all the money the government has borrowed.
Finally it results in the country going the way of Greece or Argentina.
I agree with you up to a point but only up to a point.
You can have
1) Tax and spend where the tax matches the spend 2) Tax and not spend (not seen one of these) 3) Spend 4) Not tax and not spend
1) can work, but increased taxation cuts into growth. So there has to be a balance 2) would work but never seen this (caveats for 1 apply) 3) will fail due to the national debt being unpayable at some point 4) can work - but infrastructural issues in the longer term.
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
Entirely moot point as it all ran out 7 years ago.
We spoke to Dr Aled Jones, director of the Global Resource Observatory that produced the research. “The BBC headline was a bit misleading”, he says.
The UK would only run out if it stopped – or was prevented from – importing any oil, gas or coal, and if it somehow became too expensive to exploit the UK’s remaining reserves.
I wonder if the year 2014 had anything to do with the ‘poor journalism’.
Great to see Aled Jones has another string to his bow though.
Not a unique feature to 2014. See the pandemic, for example.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
There appears no rational reason for Israel to have attacked Iran's gas facilities. Other than to chuck gasoline on the fire. Throw all the pieces up in the air.
12-D chess it isn't.
Wouldn't it starve Iran's electricity grid of fuel if the gas field was destroyed? No electricity, no weapons production, doesn't seem completely irrational.
No domestic economy; no fertiliser production; no desalination etc. The aim of the war was argued by its proponents to be either regime change, or preventing Iran getting nuclear weapons. The complete immiseration, and possible starvation of the population wasn't supposed to be the motivation.
If there's no domestic economy then that gives any moderate military a very high incentive to overthrow the hardline IRGC and the Mullahs in order to get regime change and end hostilities.
Plus they're perfectly legitimate military targets in their own right, but if the objective is regime change then absolutely it makes perfect sense to put maximum pressure on Iran's military to need to switch sides and overthrow the regime.
What's the bloody point in going to war and not enacting regime change?
A couple of comments on Rayner from this Labour Party member:
1. Ange is hugely popular among members, more so than any other contender (with the theoretical exception of Burnham) to succeed Starmer.
2. But that popularity doesn't necessarily extend to wanting her to be leader, because many of us, and many/most Labour MPs, have serious doubts about her suitability as leader/PM. Deputy Leader was just right for her. It would be very risky to give her the top job.
I agree with you, I too have my doubts as discussed previously, but I reckon she will get the job in the summer. She is a gamble but I think people will be ready to roll the dice by then. She is not Liz Truss, however much people on the right might want her to be.
Not right wing but the bond markets say hello !!!!!!!!!!!
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
That's right. As long as some people are earning more than 10x the median income they have to accept they will be making an outsized contribution to the government coffers. It constantly amazes me that some of these people object to this.
Maybe it amazes you that many people don't share your values, and weirdly think they should be able to keep the money they worked for, but they DO object, and often vote with their feet either by moving to more economically literate countries with better tax systems, or working less, which as they are our most productive citizens, is an outsized blow to the economy, even if it benefits the public finances in the short term.
That's why increasing the tax and spending take reduces overall GDP, especially if you target income or corporate profits rather than sales. This makes the whole country poorer in the long run, as empirical studies of the question overwhelmingly demonstrate, though I appreciate that many of them are rather technical for the general reader.
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
In a spectacularly crowded field probably the stupidest and most self harming policy in the last decade.
Gas prices doubled in the past month. A marginal extension of UK O&G activity in sharp decline that might come on stream in ten years time, will make not the slightest difference to that. The essential thing is to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, which this government is doing reasonably well. Of course we can do both, but we do need to focus on the real prize. The previous government's banning of onshore wind power was actually much more self harming
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Which leads to people thinking that more money from the government is always the answer.
And people thinking that they shouldn't only be net recipients of money from the state when they are under 20 and over 60 but also the forty years in between.
Which leads to £100bn of tax receipts being used to pay the debt on all the money the government has borrowed.
Finally it results in the country going the way of Greece or Argentina.
I agree with you up to a point but only up to a point.
You can have
1) Tax and spend where the tax matches the spend 2) Tax and not spend (not seen one of these) 3) Spend 4) Not tax and not spend
1) can work, but increased taxation cuts into growth. So there has to be a balance 2) would work but never seen this (caveats for 1 apply) 3) will fail due to the national debt being unpayable at some point 4) can work - but infrastructural issues in the longer term.
So you have to chose some variation on 1 & 4
2 is, to some extent, the dictatorship model? You tax, but don't spend (on the people/country at least - stick it in offshore accounts and or bathe in champagne)
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
That's right. As long as some people are earning more than 10x the median income they have to accept they will be making an outsized contribution to the government coffers. It constantly amazes me that some of these people object to this.
They would be making an outsized contribution even with a flat tax.
That's true, the rich pay more partly because of tax progressivity but also just by dint of being so bloody minted.
1) merge employee NI with It over 5 years. 2) introduce a tax band for lower rate pensioners that keeps the old rate. 3) get rid of all the silly cliffs and fiddles. personal allowance isn’t withdrawn, for example. Just set the rates properly. 4) given the potential tax revenue increase, could even offer a small, headline rate *cut*. While increasing tax take.
Sell it as “Simpler, avoiding the gig economy cheating on not paying NI, everyone pays the same. Basic rate pensioners protected. Only those with £50k+ income pay more”
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Have you come out yet? (As a Tory that is)
Isn't the profile pic enough?
Lol, missed that. Though I could imagine a Tory hater doing it ironically (for context I have a failed Reform candidate pic for mine).
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Which leads to people thinking that more money from the government is always the answer.
And people thinking that they shouldn't only be net recipients of money from the state when they are under 20 and over 60 but also the forty years in between.
Which leads to £100bn of tax receipts being used to pay the debt on all the money the government has borrowed.
Finally it results in the country going the way of Greece or Argentina.
I agree with you up to a point but only up to a point.
You can have
1) Tax and spend where the tax matches the spend 2) Tax and not spend (not seen one of these) 3) Spend 4) Not tax and not spend
1) can work, but increased taxation cuts into growth. So there has to be a balance 2) would work but never seen this (caveats for 1 apply) 3) will fail due to the national debt being unpayable at some point 4) can work - but infrastructural issues in the longer term.
So you have to chose some variation on 1 & 4
2 is, to some extent, the dictatorship model? You tax, but don't spend (on the people/country at least - stick it in offshore accounts and or bathe in champagne)
Maybe - but most spend like crazy from a shrinking economy to fund tanks plus keeping the riots to minimum. Because if you get your tank treads all sticky from running over rioters, the cleaning bill is something fierce.
Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.
In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest
This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.
In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.
I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.
Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.
Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.
Exactly so. To achieve flatter taxes and more equitable contributions to the State's finances requires that there is a more equitable distribution of income.
That's right. As long as some people are earning more than 10x the median income they have to accept they will be making an outsized contribution to the government coffers. It constantly amazes me that some of these people object to this.
Maybe it amazes you that many people don't share your values, and weirdly think they should be able to keep the money they worked for, but they DO object, and often vote with their feet either by moving to more economically literate countries with better tax systems, or working less, which as they are our most productive citizens, is an outsized blow to the economy, even if it benefits the public finances in the short term.
That's why increasing the tax and spending take reduces overall GDP, especially if you target income or corporate profits rather than sales. This makes the whole country poorer in the long run, as empirical studies of the question overwhelmingly demonstrate, though I appreciate that many of them are rather technical for the general reader.
People who love money more than their country or their fellow citizens are more than welcome to leave, it's a free country. If you earning more than 10x the median income you are paying a bit less than half of that in income tax and NICs. You are still left with a post tax income most people can only dream of. If that's not enough for people I honestly think they have mental health issues.
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
In a spectacularly crowded field probably the stupidest and most self harming policy in the last decade.
Gas prices doubled in the past month. A marginal extension of UK O&G activity in sharp decline that might come on stream in ten years time, will make not the slightest difference to that. The essential thing is to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, which this government is doing reasonably well. Of course we can do both, but we do need to focus on the real prize. The previous government's banning of onshore wind power was actually much more self harming
Onshore wind can’t use the biggest, most efficient turbines.
Moving a 100 meter blade by land is a huge, expensive operation. Barging it around and lifting it at sea is a standard thing - it would be considered a minor cargo.
IIRC, by the time you add up the quicker, cheaper approval for offshore and the more efficient turbines, offshore wind in most cases.
The U.K. has enough potential sites in our territorial waters to build all the wind capacity you could want and more.
With the current hike in gas prices likely to increase our energy bills, now is the time for the government to decouple electricity prices from gas prices. If they do that they will reduce the slump in popularity with the voting public that they will otherwise suffer. Of course, there will be those on the extreme right who will criticise the risk to energy company profits. Anyone other than Starmer will ignore them. Starmer may be too feart.
Can you explain how the government would decouple electricity prices from gas prices?
I don't know all the details, so my simplistic understanding is that you can only do so by not using gas to generate the marginal unit of electricity needed to supply the grid. Now, if you had regional pricing, that happy state of affairs would sometimes exist in the north of the country, and instead electricity would become more expensive in the south, where gas is a greater part of the mix.
We could do what the French did in the 80s, and build thirty or forty nuclear power stations. Job done sometime in the next decade, completely decoupled from gas, if we were serious about it.
Sure. I've advocated for greater investment in electricity infrastructure (whether wind, tidal or nuclear) for many years, and if we'd done that in the past we might not be using gas today.
But @Fairliered seemed to be suggesting that the government could achieve the same result at the stroke of a pen today, which is a different thing.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
Contrary to reports from Axios, U.S. President Donald J. Trump states that the United States “knew nothing” about Wednesday’s attack by Israel against Iran’s South Pars Gas Field, adding that “Qatar was in no way, shape, or form, involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen. Unfortunately, Iran did not know this, or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Pars attack, and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar's LNG Gas facility.”
President Trump states following today’s attack by Israel and retaliatory strikes by Iran, “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar - In which instance the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before.”
Trump still believes he's in control of events. When you go to war you're in control only of your own forces.
Yes. It is not looking great for this intervention.
I don't see what can now be achieved for it, other than an embarassing cessation of hostilities. Which is very sad for Iran's people.
What you really want is for the army to go over to the Shah, turn on the IRGC, and then it's game over for the regime. But I feel the attacks have united the two.
A more thoughtful US might have considered all the historical precedents there are for people rallying to their governments, even unpleasant or evil ones, once under attack from an enemy, and the lack of examples of where dropping bombs on people has led to fruitful political change.
There have certainly been big pro-regime protests, but I'm not sure they're indicative of a rally - I would imagine the attendees already had a firm view.
However, the regime remains very intact, and very in control of the streets.
To negotiate from a strong position, Trump must stop the flow of Iranian oil and gas to Iran-sympathetic powers, and re-start the flow of Gulf oil to the West.
I think I would probably just non-violently comandeer the tankers currently being sent to China, pay off the crews, and either keep them anchored somewhere or re-route them West. That way Iran is getting no oil out, and China won't pay for oil and gas it's not getting.
So widening the war and involving other great powers in the conflict?
Yep, that has never gone wrong before.
I would not have got into the war in the first place. However, now that Trump is in it, the situation whereby Gulf oil exports are effectively stopped and Iranian ones may continue unhindered isn't really viable if there is to be a successful negotiated peace.
Why could Trump not use his really really good best in the world military to stop Iran exporting any oil. They are supposedly very very great at pinpoint targetting and hav ethe best bombs and missiles etc etc , should be easy peasy given the war is already won a week ago.
Even in big conflicts, it seems there's a lot of queasiness about interrupting energy flows. Neither America nor Russia did much very consistently to destroy ISIS's oil operation out of Syria.
But in this case, Trump must turn this situation to his favour.
He also needs to get Israel under control.
To put it politely his hubris has absolutely F****d him big time and we will all pay the price.
Though if my screwups left me sitting pretty while everyone else pays the price, I'd probably be pretty hubristic as well.
And I'm lovely in a way that Trump isn't.
Exactly. Millions suffer from Trump's actions, many paying with their lives, while the MAGAs carry on waddling around McDonalds and Piggly-Wigglys totally oblivious, unaffected and not giving a damn.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I agree with this. Rayner is a lot wilier and worldlier than Truss. I suspect she’d lose a GE, but she’d also prevent Labour totally imploding as she wins back Green voters
However she’s also highly polarising. So her being PM would, I think, make a Farage victory much likelier. Choose your poison carefully
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Have you come out yet? (As a Tory that is)
Isn't the profile pic enough?
I'm not a Tory, still a LibDem. I had Queen Angie as avatar before this, that didn't make me Labour either.
As the political tides shift you can find your fixed point moving between party identities. Just saying...
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
If Tories lose more than 300 seats as main. Opposition in mid term when historically sitting incumbent loses seats and main opposition wins seats, surely she has to be toast.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
So long as we don't suddenly announce a massive unfunded tax cut I'm pretty sure international factors (like this current crisis) will be what mainly impacts gilt prices.
Reminder: there's no gas to be fracked in Britain or the rest of Europe, and there's no oil or gas left in the North Sea. That's why we cannot give licenses to companies looking for reserves there and have to tax their profits at 78%.
You are right to flag this up Willy, there is so much ignorance around these things.
It can both true UK Gas basin can still have quite a bit of Gas in it… and most of the technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract available gas mostly gone.
IF we could viably extract Gas from our depleted North Sea basin it wouldn’t help with UK gas bills very much at all because energy companies operating in the UK’s section of the North Sea do not sell gas exclusively to UK customers, they sell into the pan-European market and the UK wholesale price tends to move in line with the European wholesale price.
The UK oil basin currently has substantially more remaining recoverable reserves than the gas basin, oil still makes up the vast majority of the UK's remaining offshore wealth. But oil too in decline regards approaching point of technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract.
Does this sound similar to how UK’s coal industry went the way of the dohdoh?
It is the most pathetic and misleading politics to say “why the painfull rush to renewables - we should just copy Norway.” UK can’y copy Norway anymore, and get same results as Norway. We can’t “copy Norway” or “be more like Norway” because UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km² - we didn’t pace ourselves like Norway did. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. This led to a production peak in 1999, much earlier than Norway's 2004 peak. Also the geology is not perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively under-explored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea.
Contrary to reports from Axios, U.S. President Donald J. Trump states that the United States “knew nothing” about Wednesday’s attack by Israel against Iran’s South Pars Gas Field, adding that “Qatar was in no way, shape, or form, involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen. Unfortunately, Iran did not know this, or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Pars attack, and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar's LNG Gas facility.”
President Trump states following today’s attack by Israel and retaliatory strikes by Iran, “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar - In which instance the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before.”
Trump still believes he's in control of events. When you go to war you're in control only of your own forces.
Yes. It is not looking great for this intervention.
I don't see what can now be achieved for it, other than an embarassing cessation of hostilities. Which is very sad for Iran's people.
What you really want is for the army to go over to the Shah, turn on the IRGC, and then it's game over for the regime. But I feel the attacks have united the two.
A more thoughtful US might have considered all the historical precedents there are for people rallying to their governments, even unpleasant or evil ones, once under attack from an enemy, and the lack of examples of where dropping bombs on people has led to fruitful political change.
There have certainly been big pro-regime protests, but I'm not sure they're indicative of a rally - I would imagine the attendees already had a firm view.
However, the regime remains very intact, and very in control of the streets.
To negotiate from a strong position, Trump must stop the flow of Iranian oil and gas to Iran-sympathetic powers, and re-start the flow of Gulf oil to the West.
I think I would probably just non-violently comandeer the tankers currently being sent to China, pay off the crews, and either keep them anchored somewhere or re-route them West. That way Iran is getting no oil out, and China won't pay for oil and gas it's not getting.
So widening the war and involving other great powers in the conflict?
Yep, that has never gone wrong before.
I would not have got into the war in the first place. However, now that Trump is in it, the situation whereby Gulf oil exports are effectively stopped and Iranian ones may continue unhindered isn't really viable if there is to be a successful negotiated peace.
Why could Trump not use his really really good best in the world military to stop Iran exporting any oil. They are supposedly very very great at pinpoint targetting and hav ethe best bombs and missiles etc etc , should be easy peasy given the war is already won a week ago.
Even in big conflicts, it seems there's a lot of queasiness about interrupting energy flows. Neither America nor Russia did much very consistently to destroy ISIS's oil operation out of Syria.
But in this case, Trump must turn this situation to his favour.
He also needs to get Israel under control.
To put it politely his hubris has absolutely F****d him big time and we will all pay the price.
Though if my screwups left me sitting pretty while everyone else pays the price, I'd probably be pretty hubristic as well.
And I'm lovely in a way that Trump isn't.
Exactly. Millions suffer from Trump's actions, many paying with their lives, while the MAGAs carry on waddling around McDonalds and Piggly-Wigglys totally oblivious, unaffected and not giving a damn.
On a lighter note our youngest granddaughter (4) said to me yesterday, I have been to chicken nugget land and had a burger
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
My eldest (just turned 25) is in a right mess. Doing a masters degree they hate (but excel at), with no real clue what to do next. And for them the grad jobs disaster isn't just news headlines, its lived experience. Add on Trump, the war, and even the Meningitis outbreak and the world seems like horror?
My horror? Paying yet another £50 to the government to file a Confirmation Statement on one of my businesses. Used to be less than half that a few years ago. Grasping fucks.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
Bond markets as you know before Trump and Bibi went on war attack mode were doing rather well supporting economic progress.
Bond increases all down to trump.
Furthermore, no one needs any lectures on Bond markets after Truss...
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
In a spectacularly crowded field probably the stupidest and most self harming policy in the last decade.
Gas prices doubled in the past month. A marginal extension of UK O&G activity in sharp decline that might come on stream in ten years time, will make not the slightest difference to that. The essential thing is to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, which this government is doing reasonably well. Of course we can do both, but we do need to focus on the real prize. The previous government's banning of onshore wind power was actually much more self harming
Onshore wind can’t use the biggest, most efficient turbines.
Moving a 100 meter blade by land is a huge, expensive operation. Barging it around and lifting it at sea is a standard thing - it would be considered a minor cargo.
IIRC, by the time you add up the quicker, cheaper approval for offshore and the more efficient turbines, offshore wind in most cases.
The U.K. has enough potential sites in our territorial waters to build all the wind capacity you could want and more.
Point is, if the previous government hadn't imposed its illogical ban on onshore wind that would be chunk of fossil fuels we wouldn't need now. Same if they had managed their CFD auctions better. Overall they did OK but the current government is doing better, but still needs to do more as the current crisis shows
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
In a spectacularly crowded field probably the stupidest and most self harming policy in the last decade.
Gas prices doubled in the past month. A marginal extension of UK O&G activity in sharp decline that might come on stream in ten years time, will make not the slightest difference to that. The essential thing is to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, which this government is doing reasonably well. Of course we can do both, but we do need to focus on the real prize. The previous government's banning of onshore wind power was actually much more self harming
Both "getting off fossil fuels" and bringing in new oil and gas capacity aren't something that can be done in a couple of years. Both make sense, but neither really does anything for our immediate predicament.
If Tories lose more than 300 seats as main. Opposition in mid term when historically sitting incumbent loses seats and main opposition wins seats, surely she has to be toast.
Many of the elections in Tory heartlands.
Labour will lose 1000 seats minimum
Tories should be winning net seats not losing
150 losses poor 300 losses terminal for Kemi
The 'heartland' elections were last fought in 2021 when the Tories were polling 45%.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
And yet some people here were, in 2024, saying he was the better choice than Harris.
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
In a spectacularly crowded field probably the stupidest and most self harming policy in the last decade.
Gas prices doubled in the past month. A marginal extension of UK O&G activity in sharp decline that might come on stream in ten years time, will make not the slightest difference to that. The essential thing is to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, which this government is doing reasonably well. Of course we can do both, but we do need to focus on the real prize. The previous government's banning of onshore wind power was actually much more self harming
Both "getting off fossil fuels" and bringing in new oil and gas capacity aren't something that can be done in a couple of years. Both make sense, but neither really does anything for our immediate predicament.
There isn't really a whole lot that can be done about the immediate predicament. We just have to suck it up.
But if we'd made decisions in 2022 to prioritise long-term investment to move away from fossil fuels - instead of a short-term subsidy - then we'd be much further ahead on not having to give a damn about wars in the Middle East. Instead it looks to be nailed-on that the same mistake will be repeated. (Absolutely pointlessly I might add. The voters were not at all grateful for the £bns in support they received from the Tories.)
If Tories lose more than 300 seats as main. Opposition in mid term when historically sitting incumbent loses seats and main opposition wins seats, surely she has to be toast.
Many of the elections in Tory heartlands.
Labour will lose 1000 seats minimum
Tories should be winning net seats not losing
150 losses poor 300 losses terminal for Kemi
So why are you so terrified ? If you can't convince yourself then why are you being paid to write this guff, day after day after day ? Your employer is not getting value for money and you should be replaced by someone who can at least convince himself. Time for a new Troll, this one is wearing very, very thin.
If Tories lose more than 300 seats as main. Opposition in mid term when historically sitting incumbent loses seats and main opposition wins seats, surely she has to be toast.
Many of the elections in Tory heartlands.
Labour will lose 1000 seats minimum
Tories should be winning net seats not losing
150 losses poor 300 losses terminal for Kemi
The 'heartland' elections were last fought in 2021 when the Tories were polling 45%.
According to this https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 Labour will lose 600 and the Tories 400, but it is based on Westminster polling and I am sure a lot of people will vote differently in local elections, even if it is just to give the Government a free hit
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
I don't know about dementia, he doesn't seem much different to how he was in the 2024 campaign to me. I think it's just hubris and narcissism progressing from an already very high base. But, whatever, it's a worry (to put it mildly).
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
My eldest (just turned 25) is in a right mess. Doing a masters degree they hate (but excel at), with no real clue what to do next. And for them the grad jobs disaster isn't just news headlines, its lived experience. Add on Trump, the war, and even the Meningitis outbreak and the world seems like horror?
My horror? Paying yet another £50 to the government to file a Confirmation Statement on one of my businesses. Used to be less than half that a few years ago. Grasping fucks.
If they're able to excel at something they hate, they'll do fine at life.
Have you made sure to pay £45 to ICO as well, in exchange for NOTHING? Halcyon days, when the 2010 government made big play of reducing the confirmation statement cost from £16 to £13.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
My eldest (just turned 25) is in a right mess. Doing a masters degree they hate (but excel at), with no real clue what to do next. And for them the grad jobs disaster isn't just news headlines, its lived experience. Add on Trump, the war, and even the Meningitis outbreak and the world seems like horror?
My horror? Paying yet another £50 to the government to file a Confirmation Statement on one of my businesses. Used to be less than half that a few years ago. Grasping fucks.
Indeed but the govt needs the money and has shown no desire at all to rein in spending so expect more, not less, of this in future as the productive economy is soaked to fund the rest.
So, can't afford to buy heating oil. Tank is half full and we're only running the boiler 2 hours a day now anyway.
And God alone knows what the price of petrol is now for the boy's Mini.
The price of *everything* is about to go shooting up. Have just nailed down a new mortgage deal before the deal got pulled. Cost 20 basis points vs last week, but its only going in one direction.
If Tories lose more than 300 seats as main. Opposition in mid term when historically sitting incumbent loses seats and main opposition wins seats, surely she has to be toast.
Many of the elections in Tory heartlands.
Labour will lose 1000 seats minimum
Tories should be winning net seats not losing
150 losses poor 300 losses terminal for Kemi
The 'heartland' elections were last fought in 2021 when the Tories were polling 45%.
According to this https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/locals-2026 Labour will lose 600 and the Tories 400, but it is based on Westminster polling and I am sure a lot of people will vote differently in local elections, even if it is just to give the Government a free hit
Pollcheck is wildly optimistic for !abour imo. It has Reform fourth overall on wards won which seems unlikely. Having said that, Reform overachieved in 2925 on the way up, im nkt at all sure they'll repeat the trick and may underachueve now they are on the way down. The Tiry vote knows it has to turn out of it wants Tory councils now so we will see how on strike it is
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
France has much higher public spending/taxation than we do, and lower borrowing costs. Same with Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland.
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
In a spectacularly crowded field probably the stupidest and most self harming policy in the last decade.
Gas prices doubled in the past month. A marginal extension of UK O&G activity in sharp decline that might come on stream in ten years time, will make not the slightest difference to that. The essential thing is to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, which this government is doing reasonably well. Of course we can do both, but we do need to focus on the real prize. The previous government's banning of onshore wind power was actually much more self harming
Both "getting off fossil fuels" and bringing in new oil and gas capacity aren't something that can be done in a couple of years. Both make sense, but neither really does anything for our immediate predicament.
Yes, regret the previous government didn't take steps that might have helped a little bit with current predicament, but we are where we are.
Medium term: get off fossil fuels. Short term, ration demand in the least destructive way possible, maximise other O&G sources and if possible do a deal with Iran.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
Bond markets as you know before Trump and Bibi went on war attack mode were doing rather well supporting economic progress.
Bond increases all down to trump.
Furthermore, no one needs any lectures on Bond markets after Truss...
Remind us please what she did with sources
With Trump threatening to ‘blow up’ all of Iran’s South Pars gasfield if Tehran strikes Qatar again, the Bank of England “lock in” has started.
12 o’clock today, the beginning of the end of this Labour spell in office will be ceremonialy announced and carefully explained why Labour government is now toast 😃
I’m going to have an extended work break and watch it.
With the current hike in gas prices likely to increase our energy bills, now is the time for the government to decouple electricity prices from gas prices. If they do that they will reduce the slump in popularity with the voting public that they will otherwise suffer. Of course, there will be those on the extreme right who will criticise the risk to energy company profits. Anyone other than Starmer will ignore them. Starmer may be too feart.
Can you explain how the government would decouple electricity prices from gas prices?
I don't know all the details, so my simplistic understanding is that you can only do so by not using gas to generate the marginal unit of electricity needed to supply the grid. Now, if you had regional pricing, that happy state of affairs would sometimes exist in the north of the country, and instead electricity would become more expensive in the south, where gas is a greater part of the mix.
The market can be differently organised (eg split gas off into a fixed return pool - which sets our marginal price nearly 100% of the time), or wait for the increase in renewables to drive the more expensive gas powered sources out. That should have happened substantially by the next election.)
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
That sounds like Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia
https://order.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/frontotemporal-disorders.pdf The most common FTD, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), involves changes in personality, behavior, and judgment. People with bvFTD can act strangely around other people, resulting in embarrassing social situations. Often, they don’t know or care that their behavior is unusual and don’t show any consideration for the feelings of others. People with this disorder may or may not have problems with cognition or memory...
The bolded bit is not, however, a novel symptom in Trump's case, since he's been like that all his life.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
France has much higher public spending/taxation than we do, and lower borrowing costs. Same with Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
I couldn't disagree more. Getting rid of the Iranian regime is one of the best things that could happen for the future safety of the world imo.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
And yet some people here were, in 2024, saying he was the better choice than Harris.
I have to say that Biden, Harris and the Democrats have to accept some responsibilty for Trump
Biden clearly was suffering from at the very least early stage onset dementia and his wife, if she really wanted the best for him, with others should have him stand down and Harris or someone else takeover
I really liked Joe Biden and was saddened to see his mental health decline, but sadly the rest is history and the narcissistic disaster that is Trump
Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?
'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea
We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'
It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning
It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway
In a spectacularly crowded field probably the stupidest and most self harming policy in the last decade.
Gas prices doubled in the past month. A marginal extension of UK O&G activity in sharp decline that might come on stream in ten years time, will make not the slightest difference to that. The essential thing is to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, which this government is doing reasonably well. Of course we can do both, but we do need to focus on the real prize. The previous government's banning of onshore wind power was actually much more self harming
Both "getting off fossil fuels" and bringing in new oil and gas capacity aren't something that can be done in a couple of years. Both make sense, but neither really does anything for our immediate predicament.
Yes, regret the previous government didn't take steps that might have helped a little bit with current predicament, but we are where we are.
Medium term: get off fossil fuels. Short term, ration demand in the least destructive way possible, maximise other O&G sources and if possible do a deal with Iran.
I'm in agreement. I've been going on about our incapacity to make sensible long terms plans, and implement them, for a good couple of decades.
This government won't get much recognition for it, but they are (for now) moving in the right direction on nuclear. Which is more than you can say for their predecessors this century.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
France has much higher public spending/taxation than we do, and lower borrowing costs. Same with Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland.
Not sure that has anything to do with the UKs present crisis
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
I couldn't disagree more. Getting rid of the Iranian regime is one of the best things that could happen for the future safety of the world imo.
We haven't got rid of the Iranian regime.
Just as we didn't get rid of the Venezuelan regime.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
Neither can I.
I cannot see how this ends before the Israeli elections. Iran, in spite of what some people expect it to do, won’t surrender and are showing they can strike and hit at will.
We are going to have to get used to the current situation and plan around it.
We also have to plan on the US and Israel being hostile nations, certainly hostile to our interests.
We have to consider the Impact of fertiliser shortages and potential mass starvation or food shortages. Remember what happened in Sri Lanka when the eco loons got some fertilisers banned.
The soft left have been calling the bond markets undemocratic and Rayner has been calling out the OBR for its approach to valuing benefits, for example on social,housing on which she failed abysmally to get building. Both would be calamitous if they proceeded and for all people here rating her, she’s a disaster in the making and would be to labour what Truss was to the Tories.
Perhaps we need it to get this crap out of the system and get back to the more competent version of Labour we have previously seen.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
France has much higher public spending/taxation than we do, and lower borrowing costs. Same with Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland.
Not sure that has anything to do with the UKs present crisis
The reality is that if Biden had stuck to his original plan to only fight one election, they could have groomed a proper successor in 2022/2023 and gone onto win in 2024.
They really only have themselves to blame for the mess.
Biden even in his reduced state though was clearly better than Trump. Who is also clearly suffering from dementia. Compare 2016 Trump or earlier to today Trump.
It's right that Rayner is the fav for Next PM because she's popular with Labour members, the vibe has moved against Streeting, she's female, and it's now clear she wants it. However I wouldn't back her at current prices. Three main reasons: (1) Yes, she's popular with members but not necessarily to replace SKS as PM. Eg I like her but she wouldn't be my first choice. (2) She isn't that popular with MPs. This is important both for getting on the ballot and to add credence to a candidacy. (3) I think the market overrates the chance of a PM change this year. It might happen but I'd say there's at least an equal chance it won't, and a contest next year or beyond could look very different compared to one this summer.
Labour member's need to learn the lesson of Truss, because they would see the same outcome if Rayner became PM
That gets said but it's a worry I don't share. Rayner is a far cannier, more mature politician than Truss.
I just do not see the bond markets looking favourably on left wing policies, and especially now when borrowing on 10 year gilts is testing 4.80%
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
France has much higher public spending/taxation than we do, and lower borrowing costs. Same with Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland.
Not sure that has anything to do with the UKs present crisis
Just pointing out that lenders are perfectly happy investing in countries with left wing fiscal policies.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
And yet some people here were, in 2024, saying he was the better choice than Harris.
I have to say that Biden, Harris and the Democrats have to accept some responsibilty for Trump
Biden clearly was suffering from at the very least early stage onset dementia and his wife, if she really wanted the best for him, with others should have him stand down and Harris or someone else takeover
I really liked Joe Biden and was saddened to see his mental health decline, but sadly the rest is history and the narcissistic disaster that is Trump
Harris was fucking useless. They should have had a proper contest and found a more worthy candidate rather than just deciding it was her turn.
So, can't afford to buy heating oil. Tank is half full and we're only running the boiler 2 hours a day now anyway.
And God alone knows what the price of petrol is now for the boy's Mini.
The price of *everything* is about to go shooting up. Have just nailed down a new mortgage deal before the deal got pulled. Cost 20 basis points vs last week, but its only going in one direction.
I read online that the cost food, a reasonable chunk is fertiliser. Well that is going through the roof so expect serious food inflation later in the year too.
I’ve got plenty of dried pasta, flour and rice as well as tins of stuff.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
I couldn't disagree more. Getting rid of the Iranian regime is one of the best things that could happen for the future safety of the world imo.
We haven't got rid of the Iranian regime.
Just as we didn't get rid of the Venezuelan regime.
"Let's remind outselves with a quick look at her [Kemi's] best bits" At which point, there are, apparently, no best bits to show
It's interesting how these things go, though. Truss, this would have been news, as emblematic of her leadership, as the letters falling off the backdrop were in the darker days of May's and the bacon sarnie for Ed M. As it is, she has managed not to be that laughing stock and so it's just a tech snafu.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
Perhaps your 'MI5 mate' read Dominic Lawson in the Times:
As a former employee in Trump’s casino business, John O’Donnell, wrote in his book on the experience, Trumped!: “Donald’s conception of time was so circumscribed that it was astounding. He did business entirely in the moment.” But in war the consequences last for years, decades even.
...
In September 2016, before the election which first propelled Trump into the White House (to general surprise and his own), Politico magazine ran a lengthy examination of the man’s behaviour in the world of business, the theme of which was that he had no attention span whatsoever, and a similar amount of patience. A project manager on Trump Tower, Barbara Res, described her vain attempt to prepare him for a court case. “He said, ‘No, I don’t need to be prepared.’” Thus unprepared, he did poorly in the deposition, and the Trump Organisation lost the case. “He was so distracted,” Res recalled. “He really couldn’t stay focused.” O’Donnell remarked that Trump’s “attention span was so small it was almost impossible to have a strategic conversation with him”.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Have you come out yet? (As a Tory that is)
I love Tories, but, as a vegetarian, I could never eat a whole one!
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
I couldn't disagree more. Getting rid of the Iranian regime is one of the best things that could happen for the future safety of the world imo.
We haven't got rid of the Iranian regime.
Just as we didn't get rid of the Venezuelan regime.
No, we're just spectators.
Spectators of a war which is not getting rid of the regime.
If Tories lose more than 300 seats as main. Opposition in mid term when historically sitting incumbent loses seats and main opposition wins seats, surely she has to be toast.
Many of the elections in Tory heartlands.
Labour will lose 1000 seats minimum
Tories should be winning net seats not losing
150 losses poor 300 losses terminal for Kemi
So why are you so terrified ? If you can't convince yourself then why are you being paid to write this guff, day after day after day ? Your employer is not getting value for money and you should be replaced by someone who can at least convince himself. Time for a new Troll, this one is wearing very, very thin.
So, can't afford to buy heating oil. Tank is half full and we're only running the boiler 2 hours a day now anyway.
And God alone knows what the price of petrol is now for the boy's Mini.
The price of *everything* is about to go shooting up. Have just nailed down a new mortgage deal before the deal got pulled. Cost 20 basis points vs last week, but its only going in one direction.
I read online that the cost food, a reasonable chunk is fertiliser. Well that is going through the roof so expect serious food inflation later in the year too.
I’ve got plenty of dried pasta, flour and rice as well as tins of stuff.
Buy what you can because the price of *everything* is going to shoot up.
Because TACO we can hope for an end to this war in the coming weeks. At which point supplies can start to resume to normal. Which means a hard bump in prices of maybe 3.6 months. Not Great. Not Terrible.
Then again, Trump is a demented twat and America is massively exposed to the continuing regime it can't remove, so maybe this grinds on for months. In which case we're fucked. A bigger inflationary spike than we had with the Ukraine war.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
Well yes but my friend is arguably the most senior forensic psychiatrist in Britain, and you, to be candid, are not
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
And yet some people here were, in 2024, saying he was the better choice than Harris.
I have to say that Biden, Harris and the Democrats have to accept some responsibilty for Trump
Biden clearly was suffering from at the very least early stage onset dementia and his wife, if she really wanted the best for him, with others should have him stand down and Harris or someone else takeover
I really liked Joe Biden and was saddened to see his mental health decline, but sadly the rest is history and the narcissistic disaster that is Trump
Harris was fucking useless. They should have had a proper contest and found a more worthy candidate rather than just deciding it was her turn.
Republican Rep. Pat Fallon had this harsh but not completely wrong take on it.
It does seem however there can be an over-reaction to actual events - my reading (from the BBC) of reports from Qatar, Kuwait and elsewhere is the Iranian strikes are more of nuisance value and such fires as have bene caused are under control - that in itself may be wishful thinking but it wouldn't surprise to see prices retreat considerably as the day goes on. .
I have spent many years working in Ras Laffan and can tell you that the damage is very significant - not nuisance value - but not an extinction event. The simple fact is that Ras Laffan has 16 LNG trains (with another 8 under construction) - and most will return quickly to full production. The worst damage (to date) is the Pearl GTL plant operated by Shell - which produces diesel - and the Laffan refinery which produces condensates (used in petrol refining). But a direct hit on the LNG storage or loading facilities would be a different matter.
I have also worked in MAA & MAB refineries in Kuwait and Riyadh refinery - I am beginning to wonder if one of my ex-wives is targetting me???
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
And yet some people here were, in 2024, saying he was the better choice than Harris.
I have to say that Biden, Harris and the Democrats have to accept some responsibilty for Trump
Biden clearly was suffering from at the very least early stage onset dementia and his wife, if she really wanted the best for him, with others should have him stand down and Harris or someone else takeover
I really liked Joe Biden and was saddened to see his mental health decline, but sadly the rest is history and the narcissistic disaster that is Trump
Harris was fucking useless. They should have had a proper contest and found a more worthy candidate rather than just deciding it was her turn.
Harris may not have been the Democrat's best candidate but as he is proving, daily and increasingly, Trump was the worst possible choice regardless. The Democrats put up someone rational, who would have been a steady hand on the tiller geopolitically, the GOP put up Trump, enough of the US electorate voted for him and he's set the world on fire.
The inquiry predates Kent’s departure on Tuesday from his post as director of the national counterterrorism center, where he had overseen the analysis of terrorist threats, according to Semafor and CBS News. The FBI declined to comment on the existence of any such investigation...
Kent insisted that there was no evidence that Iran was close to gaining a nuclear weapon or posed an imminent threat to the US. “There was no intelligence that said, ‘Hey, on whatever day it was, March 1st, the Iranians are going to launch this big sneak attack – they’re going to do some kind of a 9/11, Pearl Harbor, et cetera, they are going to attack one of our bases.’ There was none of that intelligence.”
Instead, Kent alleged, Trump’s hand was effectively forced by Israel. “The Israelis drove the decision to take this action,” he said, claiming that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials lobbied the president with claims that did not align with established intelligence channels.
Kent added: “I know how this works. I know the Israeli officials - some in intelligence, some in government – will come to US government officials and they will say all kinds of things that we know from our intelligence just simply isn’t true. They’ll say, hey, I’m giving you a preview, it’s not in intelligence channels yet, but here’s what’s gonna happen, and that doesn’t usually come to fruition.”....
Kent’s work at the National Counterterrorism Center was overseen by director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who on Wednesday said it was up to Trump — and Trump alone — to decide whether Iran posed a threat.
Gabbard, a veteran and former congresswoman from Hawaii, previously criticized talk of military strikes in Iran. She has not said what she thinks of the current strikes and a spokesperson has declined to respond to questions.
The White House pushed back forcefully when Kent resigned. Trump dismissed him as “weak on security”, insisting that Iran represented “a tremendous threat” and suggesting that those who disagreed lacked judgement. “If somebody didn’t think it was a threat, we don’t want those people,” he said.
I've had various friends open up political conversations with me, from various perspectives on the left / right spectrum. All unified in a sense of hopelessness that we continue to circle the plughole with diminishing speed.
Same
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
'He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight'
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
And yet some people here were, in 2024, saying he was the better choice than Harris.
I have to say that Biden, Harris and the Democrats have to accept some responsibilty for Trump
Biden clearly was suffering from at the very least early stage onset dementia and his wife, if she really wanted the best for him, with others should have him stand down and Harris or someone else takeover
I really liked Joe Biden and was saddened to see his mental health decline, but sadly the rest is history and the narcissistic disaster that is Trump
Harris was fucking useless. They should have had a proper contest and found a more worthy candidate rather than just deciding it was her turn.
Republican Rep. Pat Fallon had this harsh but not completely wrong take on it.
She's again talked herself in to an awful mess, this time over Nick Timothy.
Claims Starmer didn't attend event Timothy was referring to last year, not this year, last year as he was "sucking up to Jews". What the fuck?
Then claims her objection is because women were segregated at the back,? Despite the fact Timothy never mentioned segregation.
Refuses to admit its racism and Islamaphobia from Timothy.
(As an aside she ignores comments from a leading Jewish cleric who has called for her to sack Timothy, who points out some branches of Jewish faith also segregate men and women at prayer)
Then says her shadow cabinet needs new blood.
Seconds later claims that the majority of her shadow cabinet, who were in Boris, Truss and or Sunak Government Cabinet are OK as they didn't agree with any of the policy
Claims Brexit failure due to anybody but the Tories
When asked if Tories will do better than last year blames Sunak for last time locals held in 2025vand suggests Tories will do better in 2026 and win all the seats.
She's again talked herself in to an awful mess, this time over Nick Timothy.
Claims Starmer didn't attend event Timothy was referring to last year, not this year, last year as he was "sucking up to Jews". What the fuck?
Then claims her objection is because women were segregated at the back,? Despite the fact Timothy never mentioned segregation.
Refuses to admit its racism and Islamaphobia from Timothy.
(As an aside she ignores comments from a leading Jewish cleric who has called for her to sack Timothy, who points out some branches of Jewish faith also segregate men and women at prayer)
Then says her shadow cabinet needs new blood.
Seconds later claims that the majority of her shadow cabinet, who were in Boris, Truss and or Sunak Government Cabinet are OK as they didn't agree with any of the policy
Claims Brexit failure due to anybody but the Tories
When asked if Tories will do better than last year blames Sunak for last time locals held in 2025vand suggests Tories will do better in 2026 and win all the seats.
30 minutes of cluster fuck
Imagine 6 weeks...
Do you really think any of this verbal diarrhea is persuading anybody to your cause, whatever that is
"Some people want more benefits with Labour. Some people want nationalisation with Nigel Farage. Some people want bigger boobs with Zack Polanski. That’s fine. That’s what they want."
Comments
She’d be a total disaster.
But we may get three years of her prior to 2029 to live it.
Great to see Aled Jones has another string to his bow though.
1) Tax and spend where the tax matches the spend
2) Tax and not spend (not seen one of these)
3) Spend
4) Not tax and not spend
1) can work, but increased taxation cuts into growth. So there has to be a balance
2) would work but never seen this (caveats for 1 apply)
3) will fail due to the national debt being unpayable at some point
4) can work - but infrastructural issues in the longer term.
So you have to chose some variation on 1 & 4
(As a Tory that is)
What an utter clusterfuck
Shades of Rishi soaking
Tories announce Local Election Campaign.
Cleverly announces Kemi through gritted teeth
"now let's show a video"
Video doesn't work
No one can get it to work
Don't engineers sort these things Kemi?
IT Engineer allegedly
They even tried switching it on an off!
Monty Python could not have scripted it better
Same old Tories
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Plus they're perfectly legitimate military targets in their own right, but if the objective is regime change then absolutely it makes perfect sense to put maximum pressure on Iran's military to need to switch sides and overthrow the regime.
What's the bloody point in going to war and not enacting regime change?
Germany is the partner they need. Lots of money and a good industrial fit. It'd be worth parting ways with Japan to get Germany.
That's why increasing the tax and spending take reduces overall GDP, especially if you target income or corporate profits rather than sales. This makes the whole country poorer in the long run, as empirical studies of the question overwhelmingly demonstrate, though I appreciate that many of them are rather technical for the general reader.
Entirely on brand that he got a spokesman to make the apology.
https://x.com/conor_matchett/status/2034281439865315707?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
2) introduce a tax band for lower rate pensioners that keeps the old rate.
3) get rid of all the silly cliffs and fiddles. personal allowance isn’t withdrawn, for example. Just set the rates properly.
4) given the potential tax revenue increase, could even offer a small, headline rate *cut*. While increasing tax take.
Sell it as “Simpler, avoiding the gig economy cheating on not paying NI, everyone pays the same. Basic rate pensioners protected. Only those with £50k+ income pay more”
Bet that would sail through the current HoC
She's very tectchy about losing seats?
Very confused on key issues.
If Tories lose more than 300 seats she's toast.
Moving a 100 meter blade by land is a huge, expensive operation. Barging it around and lifting it at sea is a standard thing - it would be considered a minor cargo.
IIRC, by the time you add up the quicker, cheaper approval for offshore and the more efficient turbines, offshore wind in most cases.
The U.K. has enough potential sites in our territorial waters to build all the wind capacity you could want and more.
But @Fairliered seemed to be suggesting that the government could achieve the same result at the stroke of a pen today, which is a different thing.
Also are we assuming this middle east crisis is just a blip and will soon be resolved because I just cannot see any end to the fighting ?
It’s like the entire world is in turbo-drive: maximum acceleration into a scary future
Just to add to the calm, I had drinks with my MI5 psychiatrist friend yesterday. He believes Trump has a very specific form of dementia which first attacks the cerebral functions that govern foresight. The ability to think several moves ahead
He cited several symptoms that chime with his theory
The dementia is quickly progressive, so if he’s right Vance may be president before 2028. However, my friend was on his third whacking big martini so DYOR
However she’s also highly polarising. So her being PM would, I think, make a Farage victory much likelier. Choose your poison carefully
As the political tides shift you can find your fixed point moving between party identities. Just saying...
I am not at all sure he has dementia, certainly not that I recognise having experienced it with family and friends, but he certainly is narcissistic and simply deranged but that is not the same as dementia
Anyway he is an utter disaster for the world
She inherited a poll rating of 24%
If Tories lose more than 300 seats as main. Opposition in mid term when historically sitting incumbent loses seats and main opposition wins seats, surely she has to be toast.
Many of the elections in Tory heartlands.
Labour will lose 1000 seats minimum
Tories should be winning net seats not losing
150 losses poor
300 losses terminal for Kemi
It can both true UK Gas basin can still have quite a bit of Gas in it… and most of the technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract available gas mostly gone.
IF we could viably extract Gas from our depleted North Sea basin it wouldn’t help with UK gas bills very much at all because energy companies operating in the UK’s section of the North Sea do not sell gas exclusively to UK customers, they sell into the pan-European market and the UK wholesale price tends to move in line with the European wholesale price.
The UK oil basin currently has substantially more remaining recoverable reserves than the gas basin, oil still makes up the vast majority of the UK's remaining offshore wealth. But oil too in decline regards approaching point of technology recoverable and commercially viable to extract.
Does this sound similar to how UK’s coal industry went the way of the dohdoh?
It is the most pathetic and misleading politics to say “why the painfull rush to renewables - we should just copy Norway.”
UK can’y copy Norway anymore, and get same results as Norway. We can’t “copy Norway” or “be more like Norway” because UKs 32 wells per 1,000 km² compared to Norway’s 15 wells per 1,000 km² - we didn’t pace ourselves like Norway did. UK pursued an aggressive development strategy to reduce reliance on imports and boost the economy. This led to a production peak in 1999, much earlier than Norway's 2004 peak. Also the geology is not perfectly split. Eight of the ten largest fields in the North Sea are located in Norwegian waters. Norway's sector tends to have thicker reservoirs and larger "structural closures," which provide longer production tails. Norway still has relatively under-explored "frontier" areas like the Barents Sea.
So sweet when she meant McDonalds !!!!!!!!!
My horror? Paying yet another £50 to the government to file a Confirmation Statement on one of my businesses. Used to be less than half that a few years ago. Grasping fucks.
Bond increases all down to trump.
Furthermore, no one needs any lectures on Bond markets after Truss...
Remind us please what she did with sources
Both make sense, but neither really does anything for our immediate predicament.
In both Russia and Israel's case.
But if we'd made decisions in 2022 to prioritise long-term investment to move away from fossil fuels - instead of a short-term subsidy - then we'd be much further ahead on not having to give a damn about wars in the Middle East. Instead it looks to be nailed-on that the same mistake will be repeated. (Absolutely pointlessly I might add. The voters were not at all grateful for the £bns in support they received from the Tories.)
Have you made sure to pay £45 to ICO as well, in exchange for NOTHING? Halcyon days, when the 2010 government made big play of reducing the confirmation statement cost from £16 to £13.
And God alone knows what the price of petrol is now for the boy's Mini.
The price of *everything* is about to go shooting up. Have just nailed down a new mortgage deal before the deal got pulled. Cost 20 basis points vs last week, but its only going in one direction.
As @Leon says, BRACE
Having said that, Reform overachieved in 2925 on the way up, im nkt at all sure they'll repeat the trick and may underachueve now they are on the way down.
The Tiry vote knows it has to turn out of it wants Tory councils now so we will see how on strike it is
Medium term: get off fossil fuels. Short term, ration demand in the least destructive way possible, maximise other O&G sources and if possible do a deal with Iran.
12 o’clock today, the beginning of the end of this Labour spell in office will be ceremonialy announced and carefully explained why Labour government is now toast 😃
I’m going to have an extended work break and watch it.
A decent discussion:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-does-gas-set-the-price-of-electricity-and-is-there-an-alternative/
https://order.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/frontotemporal-disorders.pdf
The most common FTD, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), involves changes in personality, behavior, and judgment. People with bvFTD can act strangely around other people, resulting in embarrassing social situations. Often, they don’t know or care that their behavior is unusual and don’t show any consideration for the feelings of others. People with this disorder may or may not have problems with cognition or memory...
The bolded bit is not, however, a novel symptom in Trump's case, since he's been like that all his life.
Biden clearly was suffering from at the very least early stage onset dementia and his wife, if she really wanted the best for him, with others should have him stand down and Harris or someone else takeover
I really liked Joe Biden and was saddened to see his mental health decline, but sadly the rest is history and the narcissistic disaster that is Trump
I've been going on about our incapacity to make sensible long terms plans, and implement them, for a good couple of decades.
This government won't get much recognition for it, but they are (for now) moving in the right direction on nuclear. Which is more than you can say for their predecessors this century.
Just as we didn't get rid of the Venezuelan regime.
I cannot see how this ends before the Israeli elections. Iran, in spite of what some people expect it to do, won’t surrender and are showing they can strike and hit at will.
We are going to have to get used to the current situation and plan around it.
We also have to plan on the US and Israel being hostile nations, certainly hostile to our interests.
We have to consider the Impact of fertiliser shortages and potential mass starvation or food shortages. Remember what happened in Sri Lanka when the eco loons got some fertilisers banned.
The soft left have been calling the bond markets undemocratic and Rayner has been calling out the OBR for its approach to valuing benefits, for example on social,housing on which she failed abysmally to get building. Both would be calamitous if they proceeded and for all people here rating her, she’s a disaster in the making and would be to labour what Truss was to the Tories.
Perhaps we need it to get this crap out of the system and get back to the more competent version of Labour we have previously seen.
They really only have themselves to blame for the mess.
Biden even in his reduced state though was clearly better than Trump. Who is also clearly suffering from dementia. Compare 2016 Trump or earlier to today Trump.
I’m really not sure this what Reform needs to do.
I read online that the cost food, a reasonable chunk is fertiliser. Well that is going through the roof so expect serious food inflation later in the year too.
I’ve got plenty of dried pasta, flour and rice as well as tins of stuff.
At which point, there are, apparently, no best bits to show
It's interesting how these things go, though. Truss, this would have been news, as emblematic of her leadership, as the letters falling off the backdrop were in the darker days of May's and the bacon sarnie for Ed M. As it is, she has managed not to be that laughing stock and so it's just a tech snafu.
As a former employee in Trump’s casino business, John O’Donnell, wrote in his book on the experience, Trumped!: “Donald’s conception of time was so circumscribed that it was astounding. He did business entirely in the moment.” But in war the consequences last for years, decades even.
...
In September 2016, before the election which first propelled Trump into the White House (to general surprise and his own), Politico magazine ran a lengthy examination of the man’s behaviour in the world of business, the theme of which was that he had no attention span whatsoever, and a similar amount of patience. A project manager on Trump Tower, Barbara Res, described her vain attempt to prepare him for a court case. “He said, ‘No, I don’t need to be prepared.’” Thus unprepared, he did poorly in the deposition, and the Trump Organisation lost the case. “He was so distracted,” Res recalled. “He really couldn’t stay focused.” O’Donnell remarked that Trump’s “attention span was so small it was almost impossible to have a strategic conversation with him”.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/iran-war-pure-trump-self-gratification-20twnlqhm
Dear God
Because TACO we can hope for an end to this war in the coming weeks. At which point supplies can start to resume to normal. Which means a hard bump in prices of maybe 3.6 months. Not Great. Not Terrible.
Then again, Trump is a demented twat and America is massively exposed to the continuing regime it can't remove, so maybe this grinds on for months. In which case we're fucked. A bigger inflationary spike than we had with the Ukraine war.
https://x.com/jakecan72/status/2032331399190208609
Yes, Biden should have said from the mid-terms that he was not standing again, and the party had a regular primary season.
I have also worked in MAA & MAB refineries in Kuwait and Riyadh refinery - I am beginning to wonder if one of my ex-wives is targetting me???
Trump may or may not have dementia.
He is, however, a clear and present danger to the world's economy.
The Democrats put up someone rational, who would have been a steady hand on the tiller geopolitically, the GOP put up Trump, enough of the US electorate voted for him and he's set the world on fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/19/fbi-probing-counterterrorism-official-who-resigned-over-iran-war-reports-say
The resignation of Joe Kent, a senior counter-terrorism official who spoke out against the US war in Iran, took a dramatic turn on Wednesday with a report that he is under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over an alleged leak of classified information.
The inquiry predates Kent’s departure on Tuesday from his post as director of the national counterterrorism center, where he had overseen the analysis of terrorist threats, according to Semafor and CBS News. The FBI declined to comment on the existence of any such investigation...
Kent insisted that there was no evidence that Iran was close to gaining a nuclear weapon or posed an imminent threat to the US. “There was no intelligence that said, ‘Hey, on whatever day it was, March 1st, the Iranians are going to launch this big sneak attack – they’re going to do some kind of a 9/11, Pearl Harbor, et cetera, they are going to attack one of our bases.’ There was none of that intelligence.”
Instead, Kent alleged, Trump’s hand was effectively forced by Israel. “The Israelis drove the decision to take this action,” he said, claiming that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials lobbied the president with claims that did not align with established intelligence channels.
Kent added: “I know how this works. I know the Israeli officials - some in intelligence, some in government – will come to US government officials and they will say all kinds of things that we know from our intelligence just simply isn’t true. They’ll say, hey, I’m giving you a preview, it’s not in intelligence channels yet, but here’s what’s gonna happen, and that doesn’t usually come to fruition.”....
Kent’s work at the National Counterterrorism Center was overseen by director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who on Wednesday said it was up to Trump — and Trump alone — to decide whether Iran posed a threat.
Gabbard, a veteran and former congresswoman from Hawaii, previously criticized talk of military strikes in Iran. She has not said what she thinks of the current strikes and a spokesperson has declined to respond to questions.
The White House pushed back forcefully when Kent resigned. Trump dismissed him as “weak on security”, insisting that Iran represented “a tremendous threat” and suggesting that those who disagreed lacked judgement. “If somebody didn’t think it was a threat, we don’t want those people,” he said.
Unanimous vote
She's again talked herself in to an awful mess, this time over Nick Timothy.
Claims Starmer didn't attend event Timothy was referring to last year, not this year, last year as he was "sucking up to Jews". What the fuck?
Then claims her objection is because women were segregated at the back,? Despite the fact Timothy never mentioned segregation.
Refuses to admit its racism and Islamaphobia from Timothy.
(As an aside she ignores comments from a leading Jewish cleric who has called for her to sack Timothy, who points out some branches of Jewish faith also segregate men and women at prayer)
Then says her shadow cabinet needs new blood.
Seconds later claims that the majority of her shadow cabinet, who were in Boris, Truss and or Sunak Government Cabinet are OK as they didn't agree with any of the policy
Claims Brexit failure due to anybody but the Tories
When asked if Tories will do better than last year blames Sunak for last time locals held in 2025vand suggests Tories will do better in 2026 and win all the seats.
30 minutes of cluster fuck
Imagine 6 weeks...
Swati Dhingra: ....This could warrant a hold or increase in Bank Rate....
First time she's not wanted to lower rates I think !
"Some people want more benefits with Labour. Some people want nationalisation with Nigel Farage. Some people want bigger boobs with Zack Polanski. That’s fine. That’s what they want."
Bigger Boobs with Zach Polanski lolol
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/