This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
I don't imagine it would have been easy for any business of any size to plan for expansion from 2020 to say 2024, with the impact of Covid, Ukraine and the cost of living crisis all impacting any pre-existing uncertainty caused by Brexit.
It is a well argued piece, but ultimately with so many moving parts, the best comparator is how far have we fallen short of productivity and investment gains in Germany, France, Italy and Spain since leaving the EU? A graph against them plotted say every five years will have some validity. With Germany, for example, a bigger issue for them will be how the rebalancing of energy supply away from Russia will have impacted the economy. It may be an important spur to growth over the next ten years, to have greater security of supply; or a constrainst as alternative energy costs rise.
It was commented at the time of the Referendum by some analysts that voting to leave the EU would at least force Britain to confront our woeful record on productivity and investment. Perhaps one takeaway we can assess is that it does not seem to have happened.
The reality is there is no way of knowing for sure what would have happened without Brexit. And even "without Brexit" doesn't cover a single scenario. Scenarios where we had no referendum, leave lost 60-40 or leave lost 51-49 all have their own quirks and issues.
Orthodox economic theory suggests we should have a slightly worse economy outside the EU and that feels reasonable to me. No-one can prove or disprove it though, so what does it matter?
It matters because Fishing has gone to the effort of making a four-part series exploring aspects of it!
At least we can make an informed counter-argument to those who trot out the glib "8% cost of Brexit" claims. Which has to be worth its weight in gold...
It would be interesting to see which of the figures the public goes with - the 6-8% of this paper, 2-3% in most of the other estimates, or the 0% others suggest.
Does anyone really suggest 0% though? I think there is a general acceptance that it was not a zero sum game.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
How does the US "suspend Spain from the alliance" ? To do so would be to de facto leave NATO.
Pillocks.
Indeed. And someone needs to explain to the US the difference between a defensive alliance and an offensive alliance and which one NATO is.
Yes, another morning and we wake up to Trump's utter bullshit. Malice, lies and double dealing seems to be the new norm in a Washington led by crooks, drunks and fools.
The collapse of the Western alliance is unlikely to be recovered even after Trump dies, is impeached or goes to jail. Therefore it is not too surprising that support for the EU in Britain is growing stronger as support for the US alliance continues to plummet.
Given the very high likelihood that the corruption of the Trump regime probably involves transactions under UK law, If Trump really wants to mix it with the UK, then we could see an investigation into the personal activities of Trump and his family and associates, with criminal prosecutions taking place if merited. I note that notwithstanding the ongoing investigation into Andrew, no similar disgrace has been meted out to any single American, only the British woman, Ghislane Maxwell- and especially not into Epstein's wing man.
So the Traitor President had better watch his step.
A very British form of euthanasia for the Bill perhaps - not a lethal injection, but a bunch of has-been windbags boring it to death.
A great bonus to the economies of Jersey and Guernsey though. No doubt in short order they will see to it that the mainland wealthy can get a painless check-out...
A painless check-out by getting a painful cheque out?
Dignity in dying cites £15k (2017) as cost for UK citizen going to Dignitas, so £20k adjusted for inflation. That's less than 3 months in a cheap care home. Probably at least cost neutral without the pain and misery.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
Makes me wonder why the private members bill allowing abortion wasn't talked out by the Lords in the 60s. Presumably there were some anti-abortion Lords at the time, and it was a similar sort of situation I believe - a private members bill given parliamentary time, but not in the government manifesto.
What has changed in the country since then and what does that say about us?
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
The whole point of the HoL, as currently constituted, is to scrutinise legislation and ensure there are no unintended consequences.
That the proponents of the Bill in the Commons have been totally unwilling to make any compromises, have failed to accept any possible safeguards against coercion or financial incentives, nor to have learned from the experience of Canada, is why this Bill has fallen.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
I think you can make a case that smsller countries have their interests better looked after in the EU than UK. After all many EU countries are of a smaller or similar population size.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
No. It was an abuse of process, decidedly undemocratic and with an underlying base political motivation from some. For others it's about imposing their ideological beliefs on others, potentially prolonging their pain and suffering, Demonstrating a complete lack of empathy or humanitarian consideration.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
The whole point of the HoL, as currently constituted, is to scrutinise legislation and ensure there are no unintended consequences.
That the proponents of the Bill in the Commons have been totally unwilling to make any compromises, have failed to accept any possible safeguards against coercion or financial incentives, nor to have learned from the experience of Canada, is why this Bill has fallen.
But a majority of the Lords and the Commons were OK with this.
The failure of the bill is down to a tiny number of Lords, and they haven't presented a version of the bill they would be happy with- just countless amendments to cover the bill in tar.
LostPassword's contrast with the abortion bill, where profound opponents didn't try this stuff is the key one.
Not much more to say on this but I do agree with @Fishing that the fundamental issue that remainers have to address is that pretty much all of our problems in terms of excess consumption, negative trade balances, poor investment and productivity growth, ever increasing economic inactivity etc arose whilst we were members of the SM. The idea that membership is therefore the solution to this multitude of issues has a logical flaw.
To take an obvious example, we ran a consistent and large trade deficit with the EU for a couple of decades or more. In what way was the SM and free trade benefiting us? You can see the benefits to car workers in Munich, for example, but the reality is that this trade deficit was reducing employment (and tax revenues) in the UK by the low hundreds of thousands. I am not arguing for some autarky nor, it is obvious, has withdrawing from the EU removed this detriment. But the lazy assertion that free trade is good without consideration of good for whom is frustrating. Good for City traders certainly. Good for UK manufacturing? Clearly not.
We could be wealthier as a country with strong financial services industry and low manufacturing than the other way round.
Manufacturing is gone as an industry - forget it. It's gone to China now and it isn't going to a great friend of theirs as AI and robotics takes over.
Many of the advantages that China had over the west in terms of manufacturing can disappear with robotics and AI. Labour will no longer be a major cost. The willingness to work hard in difficult circumstances becomes irrelevant. There will be opportunities for these automated factories to be built here, if we have the right policy mix.
We clearly need our financial services industry to reduce the deficits (the books haven't balanced for a very long time) but the sector does not provide mass employment now and is even less likely to do so in the future.
It's an absurd exaggeration to say that "manufacturing is gone". Certainly both the UK and the EU have been dramatically affected by Chinese competition, but both retain significant strengths (the EU rather more than us).
But it does raise an aspect of Brexit the header has ignored, in that the removal of single market access killed investment into the UK for industries like car manufacturing. You only have to look at the numbers for UK versus EU car manufacturing to realise that.
There's a not dissimilar story in pharmaceuticals.
I wonder what a comparison between Ireland and the UK in terms of pharmaceutical employment/exports/investment pre and post Brexit would show?
I get the impression that the pharmaceutical industry was in relative decline in Britain before Brexit, but perhaps Brexit made it a lot worse.
It's complicated, with (again) rising Chinese competition, along with the US now wanting to reshore manufacturing, but again the UK losing single market access to one of the world's largest markets, and losing the headquarters of the European regulator, has disadvantaged us further.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
That ignores the much larger difference between statehood and lack of it.
I'm not arguing for Scottish independence, but it's dishonest to pretend they wouldn't exercise more sovereignty as an independent nation with EU membership than they now possess.
I’m getting suspicious, yesterday Germany announced it wanted the most powerful military in Europe by 2039 and now Lufthansa have unveiled their new black staff uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. Something is afoot.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
Makes me wonder why the private members bill allowing abortion wasn't talked out by the Lords in the 60s. Presumably there were some anti-abortion Lords at the time, and it was a similar sort of situation I believe - a private members bill given parliamentary time, but not in the government manifesto.
What has changed in the country since then and what does that say about us?
Possibly because the abortion bill included a sensible regulatory and oversight provisions?
I’m getting suspicious, yesterday Germany announced it wanted the most powerful military in Europe by 2039 and now Lufthansa have unveiled their new black staff uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. Something is afoot.
From the graph it looks business investment since Sunak became PM has grown if anything stronger than before Brexit. Labour productivity if anything looks higher now too
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
I was told, the other day, that the reason that a company was pulling out of manufacturing in Aberdeen was energy costs. Like most factories in the U.K., 100% on ‘leccy - even the forklifts. So commercial electricity prices are very, very important.
Assisted Dying wasn’t in the Labour manifesto so the Salisbury Convention doesn’t apply .
I can understand those who support it are very upset that it’s run out of time in the Lords .
MPs last year only voted very narrowly for assisted dying anyway, by 314 votes to 291, so hardly sent the bill up with a resounding mandate to the Lords so it is hardly surprising peers proposed so many amendments to it
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
Strong disagree as someone who voted No in 2014. Independence is what it says on the tin, and transformational. Independence means taking your place as a sovereign nation in the United Nations, having your own embassies, army and navy, managing your borders, being in charge of your own taxes and revenues etc.
Brexit was exiting a very important treaty, but all those things I mentioned stay the same. Ultimate sovereignty is the same
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
Makes me wonder why the private members bill allowing abortion wasn't talked out by the Lords in the 60s. Presumably there were some anti-abortion Lords at the time, and it was a similar sort of situation I believe - a private members bill given parliamentary time, but not in the government manifesto.
What has changed in the country since then and what does that say about us?
Steel's abortion bill in 1967 passed the Commons with a clear 167 to 83 votes, a much bigger margin than it voted for assisted dying by and the Lords also voted for it by 127 votes to 21
Where Reform and the Greens are ahead in the polls, what reason is there to vote Labour? What reason is there to vote Tory?
Therein lies the issue for both parties.
If I vote Labour or Tory it will probably be primarily to stop Reform. Others will want to stop the Greens.
But that doesn’t follow. If you want to stop the Greens you have to vote Reform now and vice versa.
Labour and the Tories have lost their USP, “the only game in town” under FPTP. Both are now a wasted vote.
Hardly. That would be true if the party splits were 35 Ref/30Green/15 the rest. But as things stand the most likely "stop x winning" candidate in a GE would be the incumbent. It will vary by constituency.
Not when the vast majority of voters don’t even know who their local MP is. Unless something major changes, they’ll vote on vibes, for Greens or Reform.
If the polling continues as it is then we are really going to see all the theories around tactical voting under FPTP really tested at the next GE.
For instance, if I live in a constituency that I suspect will likely be a Labour/Green battle on current polling. I don’t want the Greens to win, so what do I do? Logically - I vote Labour. But I don’t like this government and I don’t think it’s doing a good job. So can I bring myself to effectively endorse it for another term?
There is also, I feel, a rather unsaid and nebulous “vote share mandate” that whilst contributing nothing to who forms the next government does, I think, bestow an element of wider legitimacy. I think the current Labour government had the wind knocked out of its sails on day one because of the very low percentage share of the vote it received, in proportion to the majority it enjoyed. I think that did knock its confidence somewhat, and contributed to the sense of drift that characterised its first years in office. So maybe we should be thinking about that when we cast our votes too. It is all a murky picture, and makes the outcome of the next GE from where we’re all standing, incredibly difficult to predict.
The uncomfortable truth that the debate ignores is that individual votes almost never decide the outcome. Arguably this implies that you shouldn't vote tactically - vote for whoever is closest to your views. That applies especially if all the main parties have comparable vote shares nationally of 15-25%.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
I'd expect party members to be furious if that happens
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
I was told, the other day, that the reason that a company was pulling out of manufacturing in Aberdeen was energy costs. Like most factories in the U.K., 100% on ‘leccy - even the forklifts. So commercial electricity prices are very, very important.
This is also the reason why Denby Pottery is in deep trouble. Brexit gives us the freedom to protect home industry but we seem determined not to use it.
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
I’m getting suspicious, yesterday Germany announced it wanted the most powerful military in Europe by 2039 and now Lufthansa have unveiled their new black staff uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. Something is afoot.
Don't worry, it is not like we are in a series of escalating and unnecessary international trade wars after a global pandemic with our scientists in a race to new generate weapons with unprecedented power is it?
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
I'd expect party members to be furious if that happens
Pretty sure Burnham will win any leadership content at a canter.
Other bits, it sounds like Rayner WILL NOT stand for leader.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
The noteworthy thing after ten years is how little investment supporters of Brexit put into making their project work. They should for example be cheering Starmer for trying to ameliorate some of the negative effects without going back into the Single Market, rather than carping from the sidelines.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
Starmer would personally likely hand over the Falklands to Argentina over shame at our colonial past, much as he handed over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Only the electoral backlash he would face would stop him. Farage by contrast is staunchly for keeping the Falklands British.
Whatever the US says in any case Milei has said Argentina only wants a diplomatic settlement with the UK over the Falklands, he is not Galtieri 2.
Total factor productivity a.k.a. the Solow residual has been called a "measure of our ignorance" (Abramovitz). On the other hand it is still the nearest we have to a fuzzy measure of technological progress at the level of the whole economy or industry. On this interpretation a reasonable assumption is that it increases monotonically over time, so Eabhal's TFP graph showing substantial reverses in TFP around 2008 demostrates that it also picks up turmoil in the economy, with the final down blip coinciding with Brexit. However we should be careful to separate out conceptually a drop in the level from a change in the rate of growth. Afaics there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Brexit has affected the underlying growth rate of the economy
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 49 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
And related to sovereignty, part of a union that Scots can decide (as many times of they want) whether they want be part of it, as opposed to one that doesn't even allow them to ask the question of themselves.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
I was told, the other day, that the reason that a company was pulling out of manufacturing in Aberdeen was energy costs. Like most factories in the U.K., 100% on ‘leccy - even the forklifts. So commercial electricity prices are very, very important.
This is also the reason why Denby Pottery is in deep trouble. Brexit gives us the freedom to protect home industry but we seem determined not to use it.
Denby is in administration.
Last week they were running 30-50% sales to generate cash to keep afloat whilst looking for an investor.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
Orderly transitions never end up being completely orderly. There will be fallout if that happens. Question is whether it boosts Labour in the medium term and is a price worth paying.
I still think it unlikely that Starmer goes willingly. He will have to be forced out.
I’m getting suspicious, yesterday Germany announced it wanted the most powerful military in Europe by 2039 and now Lufthansa have unveiled their new black staff uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. Something is afoot.
LOL!. Having shot 3 consecutive commercials for Lufthansa and caused them 45,000 euros worth of damage I'd just like to say they were amongst the nicest clients I ever worked for!
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
This is complicated by the fact that the Brexit vote was about two separate things.
1) It was about what is better in popular issues, short term stuff, retail politics of migration and whatever.
2) It was about a fundamental idea (whether right or wrong) about sovereignty, or who is in charge.
The obvious parallel is with Scotland, divided over independence just as UK was over EU in 2016. The argument that Scottish independence may be problematic about currency, defence, economics or whatever is one thing. But for lots of Scots the real issue is in fact the basic one of 'who runs Scotland'.
An irony is that 'Scotland should run Scotland' is generally seen as a progressive cause. 'UK should run UK' is generally seen as a luddite one. A further irony is that pro Scottish independence people mostly want to be firmly outside the UK Union, but (if they can) firmly inside the EU Union.
It's not really an irony. The Scots can quite reasonably take the view that they would have considerably more sovereignty as a nation state member of the EU than they have as a subordinate part of the UK. And would be more prosperous inside the EU than outside of it.
Both are pooled sovereignty. In the case of the UK Scotland make up about 8% of the population. In the case of the EU they would make up about 1%.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
Strong disagree as someone who voted No in 2014. Independence is what it says on the tin, and transformational. Independence means taking your place as a sovereign nation in the United Nations, having your own embassies, army and navy, managing your borders, being in charge of your own taxes and revenues etc.
Brexit was exiting a very important treaty, but all those things I mentioned stay the same. Ultimate sovereignty is the same
Interesting description. You fail to note that England has none of these good things as a sovereign nation but we get by. You underestimate the sovereignty significance of having a jurisdiction, law maker and legal authority over and above that of the UK. The residual sovereignty of an EU member is the right to leave.
I am taking no view about Brexit, EU membership or Scottish independence. But the pooling of sovereignty as to the UK and as to the EU are tough and underestimated realities.
If the EU were a highly developed free trade association and friction free market in goods and services, and not also a political union, there would be none of the argument.
Not much more to say on this but I do agree with @Fishing that the fundamental issue that remainers have to address is that pretty much all of our problems in terms of excess consumption, negative trade balances, poor investment and productivity growth, ever increasing economic inactivity etc arose whilst we were members of the SM. The idea that membership is therefore the solution to this multitude of issues has a logical flaw.
To take an obvious example, we ran a consistent and large trade deficit with the EU for a couple of decades or more. In what way was the SM and free trade benefiting us? You can see the benefits to car workers in Munich, for example, but the reality is that this trade deficit was reducing employment (and tax revenues) in the UK by the low hundreds of thousands. I am not arguing for some autarky nor, it is obvious, has withdrawing from the EU removed this detriment. But the lazy assertion that free trade is good without consideration of good for whom is frustrating. Good for City traders certainly. Good for UK manufacturing? Clearly not.
The suggestion that Brexit doesn't make all these issues worse for reasons that can be demonstrated, is also a logical flaw.
It's like the "why should we attach ourselves to a backwater" argument. So we become a backwater to a backwater instead.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
Makes me wonder why the private members bill allowing abortion wasn't talked out by the Lords in the 60s. Presumably there were some anti-abortion Lords at the time, and it was a similar sort of situation I believe - a private members bill given parliamentary time, but not in the government manifesto.
What has changed in the country since then and what does that say about us?
Possibly because the abortion bill included a sensible regulatory and oversight provisions?
That is one possibility. Perhaps in the 60s the proponents of change were more willing to compromise, to accommodate contrary opinion, so that the minority opposed on fundamental grounds were willing to acquiesce to the majority.
The other possibility that occurred was that the opponents of change were determined not to engage in any way to modify the bill in practical ways, but decided to obstruct the bill by any means available.
In both cases there is an aversion to constructive debate between people with opposing views. This reminds me of what happened in Britain following the Brexit referendum where, as antifrank argued, the winners failed to gain losers consent, and many did not feel that the 48% should have any say in how Brexit should be implemented, while many Remainers were determined that there should be a second referendum in an attempt to reverse the result of the first.
If democracy devolves to a series of tests of strength and abuse of procedure (e.g. prorogation, filibuster, etc) then it is much poorer and weaker than where genuine debate occurs and elements of common ground are found. It becomes more vulnerable to an authoritarian takeover.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
Yes, but specifically on investment, don't forget that it doesn't matter by itself - it's an input not an output. It is undertaken to raise productivity and hence GDP.
What matters is if GDP is lower, and if there is no persuasive evidence of the latter, the former is of no consequence.
Also, on the point of businesses deciding where to locate, that only applies for businesses which must invest in a single plant to serve a huge continent - there are some of those, but they will be pretty marginal to an economy the size of ours. Our total exports to the EU are only 12-14% of GDP, gently declining for 30 years. Take from that service exports, which amount to around half that total, then focus on only those businesses in manufacturing with big economies of scale, then those that need to make an investment decision, and the effects of Brexit will get lost in the noise. Corporate tax and interest rates will be infinitely more important.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
I'd expect party members to be furious if that happens
Party members should have no ability to elect a PM.
It’s fine but stupid that party members get to elect the party leader when in opposition but to do it in Government is to invite a leader such as Truss who promises stupid party specific things that members love and the general public hate (so are always been carefully removed from manifestos when the party wants to win) to get elected and then tries to implement
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
The way I think about it is that I self-identify as a good man that women are safe to be around, but how are women to know that they can take me at my word?
They can only do so after I have proven myself to them by my actions, and even then someone wishing to do ill may be able to maintain a facade for a time.
This should shred support for Nigel Farage and Reform.
US could drop backing of UK claim to Falklands
The US could review its position on Britain’s claim to the Falklands Islands as part of a broader move to punish Nato allies the Trump Administration believes failed to support the war with Iran, according to a report.
An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the US to respond to the perceived lack of support, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reassessing American diplomatic support for longstanding European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies’ reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights — known as ABO — for the Iran war, an official told Reuters, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is “just the absolute baseline for Nato,” according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
Britain and Argentina fought a war in 1982 over the Falklands, after Argentinian forces staged an invasion. Some 650 Argentine soldiers and 255 British troops died before Argentina surrendered.
Not much more to say on this but I do agree with @Fishing that the fundamental issue that remainers have to address is that pretty much all of our problems in terms of excess consumption, negative trade balances, poor investment and productivity growth, ever increasing economic inactivity etc arose whilst we were members of the SM. The idea that membership is therefore the solution to this multitude of issues has a logical flaw.
To take an obvious example, we ran a consistent and large trade deficit with the EU for a couple of decades or more. In what way was the SM and free trade benefiting us? You can see the benefits to car workers in Munich, for example, but the reality is that this trade deficit was reducing employment (and tax revenues) in the UK by the low hundreds of thousands. I am not arguing for some autarky nor, it is obvious, has withdrawing from the EU removed this detriment. But the lazy assertion that free trade is good without consideration of good for whom is frustrating. Good for City traders certainly. Good for UK manufacturing? Clearly not.
We could be wealthier as a country with strong financial services industry and low manufacturing than the other way round.
Manufacturing is gone as an industry - forget it. It's gone to China now and it isn't going to a great friend of theirs as AI and robotics takes over.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
Makes me wonder why the private members bill allowing abortion wasn't talked out by the Lords in the 60s. Presumably there were some anti-abortion Lords at the time, and it was a similar sort of situation I believe - a private members bill given parliamentary time, but not in the government manifesto.
What has changed in the country since then and what does that say about us?
Steel's abortion bill in 1967 passed the Commons with a clear 167 to 83 votes, a much bigger margin than it voted for assisted dying by and the Lords also voted for it by 127 votes to 21
Interesting that so many abstained. ~400 MPs not wanting to be recorded as having a view, presumably due to not wanting to harm their re-election chances. Majority 84 vs 55 dropping to 23 (605 MPs on the record)
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
I'd expect party members to be furious if that happens
Party members should have no ability to elect a PM.
It’s fine but stupid that party members get to elect the party leader when in opposition but to do it in Government is to invite a leader such as Truss who promises stupid party specific things that members love and the general public hate (so are always been carefully removed from manifestos when the party wants to win) to get elected and then tries to implement
The unwritten problem the Tories had is that they treated the Truss election as some kind of process or mandate to change the direction of the government markedly. The government was elected on a levelling up platform of targeted but sustained investment and instead they pivoted to a low tax platform under Truss.
Leader changes are generally ok if the new leader is either going to broadly maintain the manifesto or is going to seek a mandate shortly after taking office. It’s much more problematic when the debate becomes one of changing direction mid-term with no election imminent.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
I’m getting suspicious, yesterday Germany announced it wanted the most powerful military in Europe by 2039 and now Lufthansa have unveiled their new black staff uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. Something is afoot.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
I was told, the other day, that the reason that a company was pulling out of manufacturing in Aberdeen was energy costs. Like most factories in the U.K., 100% on ‘leccy - even the forklifts. So commercial electricity prices are very, very important.
There’s massive negative correlation between energy prices and economic growth.
The first priority of the government is defence. The second priority of the government should be energy prices.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
I'd expect party members to be furious if that happens
Party members should have no ability to elect a PM.
It’s fine but stupid that party members get to elect the party leader when in opposition but to do it in Government is to invite a leader such as Truss who promises stupid party specific things that members love and the general public hate (so are always been carefully removed from manifestos when the party wants to win) to get elected and then tries to implement
The unwritten problem the Tories had is that they treated the Truss election as some kind of process or mandate to change the direction of the government markedly. The government was elected on a levelling up platform of targeted but sustained investment and instead they pivoted to a low tax platform under Truss.
Leader changes are generally ok if the new leader is either going to broadly maintain the manifesto or is going to seek a mandate shortly after taking office. It’s much more problematic when the debate becomes one of changing direction mid-term with no election imminent.
The problem is that the candidates want to get elected and then want to keep their word.
So as soon as a candidate starts offering policy changes in return for votes you get a massive mess.
And the only way to deal with that is to keep the vote to MPs alone
I’m getting suspicious, yesterday Germany announced it wanted the most powerful military in Europe by 2039 and now Lufthansa have unveiled their new black staff uniforms designed by Hugo Boss. Something is afoot.
What do the white staff wear?
It's just as well there's nothing in the recent History of Europe to suggest any problem here...
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
You've made similar comments several times over the years.
But aren't you just posting a 'tourist guide' view ?
Old twee cottages and new skyscrapers might look pretty and affluent but your Remainia is filled with people weighed down with debt, unable to afford their own homes and under threat from globalisation and AI.
Whereas those Leave voting areas often have housing easily affordable to those with a useful skillset.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
The way I think about it is that I self-identify as a good man that women are safe to be around, but how are women to know that they can take me at my word?
They can only do so after I have proven myself to them by my actions, and even then someone wishing to do ill may be able to maintain a facade for a time.
I'm curious to know if Cyclefree's awful experience was before or after she was married. It would be perfectly understandable if such a crime meant you wanted nothing to do with men ever again. But I suspect lots of women go on to get married after being the victim of sexual assault or even rape.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
Yes, but specifically on investment, don't forget that it doesn't matter by itself - it's an input not an output. It is undertaken to raise productivity and hence GDP.
What matters is if GDP is lower, and if there is no persuasive evidence of the latter, the former is of no consequence.
Also, on the point of businesses deciding where to locate, that only applies for businesses which must invest in a single plant to serve a huge continent - there are some of those, but they will be pretty marginal to an economy the size of ours. Our total exports to the EU are only 12-14% of GDP, gently declining for 30 years. Take from that service exports, which amount to around half that total, then focus on only those businesses in manufacturing with big economies of scale, then those that need to make an investment decision, and the effects of Brexit will get lost in the noise. Corporate tax and interest rates will be infinitely more important.
Thanks. The one comment I would make is that investment isn't entirely linked to exports. Product development can be in any country; service companies can decide where to put their offices; you can decide whether to make or buy etc.
I, and almost all economists, would disagree that Brexit didn't result in relatively lower GDP, but we covered that in your previous thread.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
I'd expect party members to be furious if that happens
Party members should have no ability to elect a PM.
It’s fine but stupid that party members get to elect the party leader when in opposition but to do it in Government is to invite a leader such as Truss who promises stupid party specific things that members love and the general public hate (so are always been carefully removed from manifestos when the party wants to win) to get elected and then tries to implement
The unwritten problem the Tories had is that they treated the Truss election as some kind of process or mandate to change the direction of the government markedly. The government was elected on a levelling up platform of targeted but sustained investment and instead they pivoted to a low tax platform under Truss.
Leader changes are generally ok if the new leader is either going to broadly maintain the manifesto or is going to seek a mandate shortly after taking office. It’s much more problematic when the debate becomes one of changing direction mid-term with no election imminent.
I think this may be overestimating the place of a manifesto. The appearance of competence and a climate of generalised uplift towards the sunlit uplands will suffice for most people.
And, by the way, a 'low tax' policy usually feels like a high tax policy as an alternative to a higher tax policy to non billionaires.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
Yes, but specifically on investment, don't forget that it doesn't matter by itself - it's an input not an output. It is undertaken to raise productivity and hence GDP.
What matters is if GDP is lower, and if there is no persuasive evidence of the latter, the former is of no consequence.
Also, on the point of businesses deciding where to locate, that only applies for businesses which must invest in a single plant to serve a huge continent - there are some of those, but they will be pretty marginal to an economy the size of ours. Our total exports to the EU are only 12-14% of GDP, gently declining for 30 years. Take from that service exports, which amount to around half that total, then focus on only those businesses in manufacturing with big economies of scale, then those that need to make an investment decision, and the effects of Brexit will get lost in the noise. Corporate tax and interest rates will be infinitely more important.
My impression of the way in which Ireland has developed its economy is that they see international investment by firms seeking to export as linchpin businesses that support the health of the economy of the local areas in which they are based.
So the American plant may only employ a few hundred employees and make a limited direct contribution to GDP. But its employees spend money in the local economy, the plant buys goods and services from local suppliers supporting further employment, and further spending in the local economy from those employees. All that spending by employees in the local economy supports further employment in the area. And so you have a healthy local economy.
Without that central exporting business bringing money into the local economy there's no fundamental driving force for the local economy and it struggles with low demand.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
It's another example of how we struggle to get stuff done in this country. Pockets of savvy determined opposition (to whatever it is) will obstruct/delay via endless nitpickery and gaming of the system until the whole idea gets shelved. We've grown accustomed to this happening with things like proposed new infrastructure and here we see the same with AD.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
It's another example of how we struggle to get stuff done in this country. Pockets of savvy determined opposition (to whatever it is) will obstruct/delay via endless nitpickery and gaming of the system until the whole idea gets shelved. We've grown accustomed to this happening with things like proposed new infrastructure and here we see the same with AD.
As we near the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum the peoples verdict will not be decided by academic modelling of alternatives.
It will be determined by their own experience of travelling the UK and EU. Visibly the UK is falling further and further behind our European neighbours, apart from the core Remania parts of London and SE England.
One of the Brexit paradoxes is that the places in the UK that are doing relatively well economically are those that voted to Remain. Leave was voted for by pensioners and areas in economic decline and those areas have continued and even accelerated that decline.
You've made similar comments several times over the years.
But aren't you just posting a 'tourist guide' view ?
Old twee cottages and new skyscrapers might look pretty and affluent but your Remainia is filled with people weighed down with debt, unable to afford their own homes and under threat from globalisation and AI.
Whereas those Leave voting areas often have housing easily affordable to those with a useful skillset.
The ONS used to publish a happiness index map of the UK but seems last one is 2014/5 Coincidence?
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
It's another example of how we struggle to get stuff done in this country. Pockets of savvy determined opposition (to whatever it is) will obstruct/delay via endless nitpickery and gaming of the system until the whole idea gets shelved. We've grown accustomed to this happening with things like proposed new infrastructure and here we see the same with AD.
Surely this argument founders on the Yes Minister argument of "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done". If the legislative process has prevented bad law from being enacted, surely that is good.
The bill proponents repeatedly refused to compromise. Maybe they can simply introduce a new bill next session, with amendments to improve it.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
I'd expect party members to be furious if that happens
Party members should have no ability to elect a PM.
It’s fine but stupid that party members get to elect the party leader when in opposition but to do it in Government is to invite a leader such as Truss who promises stupid party specific things that members love and the general public hate (so are always been carefully removed from manifestos when the party wants to win) to get elected and then tries to implement
The unwritten problem the Tories had is that they treated the Truss election as some kind of process or mandate to change the direction of the government markedly. The government was elected on a levelling up platform of targeted but sustained investment and instead they pivoted to a low tax platform under Truss.
Leader changes are generally ok if the new leader is either going to broadly maintain the manifesto or is going to seek a mandate shortly after taking office. It’s much more problematic when the debate becomes one of changing direction mid-term with no election imminent.
I think this may be overestimating the place of a manifesto. The appearance of competence and a climate of generalised uplift towards the sunlit uplands will suffice for most people.
And, by the way, a 'low tax' policy usually feels like a high tax policy as an alternative to a higher tax policy to non billionaires.
I disagree. I think there is a broad understanding from the electorate of “what we voted for” vs “not what we voted for” and that does have a bearing on the overall picture. Indeed, this is the challenge for Labour - rightly or wrongly people feel that the government is not behaving like the one they expected to elect in 2024. A lot of that is down to the stupidly nebulous manifesto and the ming vase strategy, but that is a widely held perception that they are finding difficult to shake.
A Reform UK candidate in next month’s local elections was a “de facto senior diplomat” for the government of Hong Kong until two-and-a-half years ago and praised China’s repressive national security law. Sheung-yuen Lee, who is standing for Nigel Farage’s party in Ealing, did not respond to a request for comment.
Not much more to say on this but I do agree with @Fishing that the fundamental issue that remainers have to address is that pretty much all of our problems in terms of excess consumption, negative trade balances, poor investment and productivity growth, ever increasing economic inactivity etc arose whilst we were members of the SM. The idea that membership is therefore the solution to this multitude of issues has a logical flaw.
To take an obvious example, we ran a consistent and large trade deficit with the EU for a couple of decades or more. In what way was the SM and free trade benefiting us? You can see the benefits to car workers in Munich, for example, but the reality is that this trade deficit was reducing employment (and tax revenues) in the UK by the low hundreds of thousands. I am not arguing for some autarky nor, it is obvious, has withdrawing from the EU removed this detriment. But the lazy assertion that free trade is good without consideration of good for whom is frustrating. Good for City traders certainly. Good for UK manufacturing? Clearly not.
We could be wealthier as a country with strong financial services industry and low manufacturing than the other way round.
Manufacturing is gone as an industry - forget it. It's gone to China now and it isn't going to a great friend of theirs as AI and robotics takes over.
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
And calls for a GE, mostly by Reform.
It would be amusing if the other parties failed to stand a candidate in the by election and let Reform win. Would be a larf.
Also from FT, they've been reporting from the Good Growth Foundation, where various Labour MPs have set out visions for the party/govt/country, something Starmer has perhaps failed to do:
Uniting all these Labour arguments is the desire to increase returns to work by reducing the dominance of wealth in the economy. If that sounds expensive, some Labour MPs are willing to embrace it. One pointed to the origins of income tax 200 years ago as a way out of endless debates about raising taxes on workers to fund public services.
“In the Napoleonic wars they got most of their tax from excise duties but they didn’t just put those up, they invented a whole new tax,” the MP said. “The economy has become more wealth based but the tax base has not caught up.”
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
Also from FT, they've been reporting from the Good Growth Foundation, where various Labour MPs have set out visions for the party/govt/country, something Starmer has perhaps failed to do:
Uniting all these Labour arguments is the desire to increase returns to work by reducing the dominance of wealth in the economy. If that sounds expensive, some Labour MPs are willing to embrace it. One pointed to the origins of income tax 200 years ago as a way out of endless debates about raising taxes on workers to fund public services.
“In the Napoleonic wars they got most of their tax from excise duties but they didn’t just put those up, they invented a whole new tax,” the MP said. “The economy has become more wealth based but the tax base has not caught up.”
Except wealth taxes don’t work because money is fluid and very easy to move around.
We’ve debated (on here) this far too many times over the years and we always end up with a wealth tax based on property and then as we go into detail we end up merging council tax into it and binning stamp duty
Heck it’s a shame that Yvette Cooper wasn’t Chancellor as she could have visited her old haunt and had a complete plan to give to the Treasury and HMRC and told them to get on with it
Also from FT, they've been reporting from the Good Growth Foundation, where various Labour MPs have set out visions for the party/govt/country, something Starmer has perhaps failed to do:
Uniting all these Labour arguments is the desire to increase returns to work by reducing the dominance of wealth in the economy. If that sounds expensive, some Labour MPs are willing to embrace it. One pointed to the origins of income tax 200 years ago as a way out of endless debates about raising taxes on workers to fund public services.
“In the Napoleonic wars they got most of their tax from excise duties but they didn’t just put those up, they invented a whole new tax,” the MP said. “The economy has become more wealth based but the tax base has not caught up.”
Which logically leads to increasing taxes on propoerty.
So extend council tax bands through to Z and then revalue every home.
Good to hear, possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation in my lifetime.
Whatever the merits of the bill, is a small number of unelected peers talking the bill out with an absurd number of amendments the right thing?
The whole point of the HoL, as currently constituted, is to scrutinise legislation and ensure there are no unintended consequences.
That the proponents of the Bill in the Commons have been totally unwilling to make any compromises, have failed to accept any possible safeguards against coercion or financial incentives, nor to have learned from the experience of Canada, is why this Bill has fallen.
But a majority of the Lords and the Commons were OK with this.
The failure of the bill is down to a tiny number of Lords, and they haven't presented a version of the bill they would be happy with- just countless amendments to cover the bill in tar.
LostPassword's contrast with the abortion bill, where profound opponents didn't try this stuff is the key one.
It was a Private Members Bill; clearly the government supported it but didn't have the cohones to put it in their manifesto, or the political nous to campaign for it beyond absolutely idiotic references to Esther Rantzen.
The arrogance of the liberal left on bringing forward - however well meaning - such fundamentally flawed legislation as this absolutely deserves the oversight of the Lords.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
I'll be honest I'm glad I'm raising a girl, the world (Unless you're a Prem footballer) is getting more stacked against boys.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
Clearly plenty of women aren't very good at spotting the rapists (Cyclefree says her attacker was considered "a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap"). So, why does Cyclefree think we'd be any better at spotting them? As it happens, I actually would be a bit more suspicious of someone who was considered "a great friendly bloke" (as opposed to a miserable git like myself and my friends!). I'd also be more wary of lawyers...
All humans err. All prime ministers have weaknesses. But this prime minister has made error his hallmark and weakness his choice. He has appointed two chiefs of staff and then sacked them both under pressure – for mistakes which were his own. He sacked the cabinet secretary he himself appointed – for mistakes which were his own. He has now sacked the head of the Foreign Office that he himself appointed – for mistakes which were his own. In this age of economic insecurity, no job is quite as perilous as being the handpicked choice of this prime minister. A greater atmosphere of fraternal trust operates in the Corleone family than exists in this government.
Assisted Dying wasn’t in the Labour manifesto so the Salisbury Convention doesn’t apply .
I can understand those who support it are very upset that it’s run out of time in the Lords .
What really pisses me off is Labour MPs who oppose the bill taking delight in the unelected Lords stymieing the democratic will of the House of Commons.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
The way I think about it is that I self-identify as a good man that women are safe to be around, but how are women to know that they can take me at my word?
They can only do so after I have proven myself to them by my actions, and even then someone wishing to do ill may be able to maintain a facade for a time.
I'm curious to know if Cyclefree's awful experience was before or after she was married. It would be perfectly understandable if such a crime meant you wanted nothing to do with men ever again. But I suspect lots of women go on to get married after being the victim of sexual assault or even rape.
I have had quite a few assaults starting at the age of 12 in the loos at Swiss Cottage library when a grown man indecently exposed himself and went on to masturbate.
Yes - I got married long after these assaults because I met a wonderful man with whom I fell in love. I very determinedly put the rape out of my mind because I felt shame and guilt and fear. I said nothing. Why? Protecting my family is one answer. Protecting myself from a painful legal process was another. I chose to forget and walk away rather than confront the perpetrator. Was that cowardly? Perhaps. I did not want to be a victim. Not denial of what happened, but denial of its power – its importance in shaping my life, my character, my choices. This happened to me. But it was not me. I would decide what events would define my life.
I speak about it now because it helps inform my views on the importance of boundaries and because silence aids the perpetrators and it is important to understand how widespread this is.
Also from FT, they've been reporting from the Good Growth Foundation, where various Labour MPs have set out visions for the party/govt/country, something Starmer has perhaps failed to do:
Uniting all these Labour arguments is the desire to increase returns to work by reducing the dominance of wealth in the economy. If that sounds expensive, some Labour MPs are willing to embrace it. One pointed to the origins of income tax 200 years ago as a way out of endless debates about raising taxes on workers to fund public services.
“In the Napoleonic wars they got most of their tax from excise duties but they didn’t just put those up, they invented a whole new tax,” the MP said. “The economy has become more wealth based but the tax base has not caught up.”
Except wealth taxes don’t work because money is fluid and very easy to move around.
We’ve debated (on here) this far too many times over the years and we always end up with a wealth tax based on property and then as we go into detail we end up merging council tax into it and binning stamp duty
Heck it’s a shame that Yvette Cooper wasn’t Chancellor as she could have visited her old haunt and had a complete plan to give to the Treasury and HMRC and told them to get on with it
Is it useful to separate aim and method here? (1) Are taxes on wealth a good idea? (2) If Yes to the former, what are the best, practical ways of taxing wealth given out is sometimes easily moved/hidden?
The Greens are hammering the Lib Dem vote, yesterday at Newquay another glaring example. I would not be surprised to see the Lib Dems showing net LOSSES next month and the opening for a leadership challenge. Presume it will be Daisy Cooper, certainly more charismatic.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
Clearly plenty of women aren't very good at spotting the rapists (Cyclefree says her attacker was considered "a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap"). So, why does Cyclefree think we'd be any better at spotting them? As it happens, I actually would be a bit more suspicious of someone who was considered "a great friendly bloke" (as opposed to a miserable git like myself and my friends!). I'd also be more wary of lawyers...
There’s also social filtration issue.
Men who have enlightened attitudes towards women tend to reject from their groups men who don’t.
So you end up with men who don’t know anyone who is like that (as far as they know). Which creates a sample issue.
@MarqueeMark "men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
For better or for worse, wasn't that a significant part of the concept of "woke" ?
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
I'm surprised at this comment from @Cyclefree. If as many men are as ghastly as this post makes out, then I find it puzzling that as many women want to be in a relationship with men. The 2021 Census found that 64% of women aged 25 to 39 are married or cohabiting.
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Categories vs individuals.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
To answer @Cyclefree 's question above ("on what basis?") - well, I know dozens of men well, and none of them are in the least bit rapey. I know of no incidents among any of my associates of unfaithfulness. Granted, you'd expect this sort of thing to remain secret - but from the attitudes of the men I know well this would be considered wildly abnormal behaviour. On this basis, I find it hard to believe that a significant minority of any group of men are rapists. I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
I'll be honest I'm glad I'm raising a girl, the world (Unless you're a Prem footballer) is getting more stacked against boys.
The gender pay gap in the UK is still estimated at 7%.
Comments
I doubt anyone at the White House even tries anymore. An important element of the horror show.
Neither state of affairs is self governing. In the case of the EU there is an 'ever closer union' commitment to the pooling increasing and the self governing aspect decreasing. (This has notably slowed down since 2016!)
The collapse of the Western alliance is unlikely to be recovered even after Trump dies, is impeached or goes to jail. Therefore it is not too surprising that support for the EU in Britain is growing stronger as support for the US alliance continues to plummet.
Given the very high likelihood that the corruption of the Trump regime probably involves transactions under UK law, If Trump really wants to mix it with the UK, then we could see an investigation into the personal activities of Trump and his family and associates, with criminal prosecutions taking place if merited. I note that notwithstanding the ongoing investigation into Andrew, no similar disgrace has been meted out to any single American, only the British woman, Ghislane Maxwell- and especially not into Epstein's wing man.
So the Traitor President had better watch his step.
Probably at least cost neutral without the pain and misery.
What has changed in the country since then and what does that say about us?
That the proponents of the Bill in the Commons have been totally unwilling to make any compromises, have failed to accept any possible safeguards against coercion or financial incentives, nor to have learned from the experience of Canada, is why this Bill has fallen.
The failure of the bill is down to a tiny number of Lords, and they haven't presented a version of the bill they would be happy with- just countless amendments to cover the bill in tar.
LostPassword's contrast with the abortion bill, where profound opponents didn't try this stuff is the key one.
My explanation for the relative investment underperformance in the period 2008 to 2016 is that it coincides with the Great Financial Crash, the worse recession since WW2, which was worse than Brexit from an economic point of view. We didn't vote for the GFC however. Also eventually we should pull out of recessions, but Brexit is forever.
I would make a business comment about investment. A lot of investment decisions are marginal. Businesses could invest in the UK or in France, Poland etc. But if one country is in the main market and the other isn't, most cases you will go for the one in the market. Why unnecessarily take on the additional risks and hassles of extra compliance?
I think the investment barriers do have a cumulative effect - every year there will be less investment in the UK on average - and this mounts up to a sizeable effect over time. Given the link between investment and productivity Brexit has made the UK's already woeful productivity problem worse. I suspect the investment barriers imposed by Brexit are more consequential than trade barriers, although the two are linked.
This chart illustrates the points we're talking about. The UK is the black line
https://obr.uk/economy_categories/business-investment/
I'm not arguing for Scottish independence, but it's dishonest to pretend they wouldn't exercise more sovereignty as an independent nation with EU membership than they now possess.
I can understand those who support it are very upset that it’s run out of time in the Lords .
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Kz7JP1rHxmg
Brexit was exiting a very important treaty, but all those things I mentioned stay the same. Ultimate sovereignty is the same
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5525040#Comment_5525040
@MarqueeMark
"men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women."
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
Significant Times piece by @patrickkmaguire
Looks like planned, procedural exit for Starmer after the expected May 7/8 local election disaster:
• Cabinet ministers are now privately concluding that Starmer cannot survive the fallout.
• The favoured scenario is not an immediate coup, but an “orderly transition” where Starmer is persuaded (or pressured) to announce a timetable for stepping down.
• A new leader would be in place by Labour Party conference (late September / early October 2026)
• Maguire names @AndyBurnhamGM as a central figure in this thinking. He notes that soft-left powerbrokers (Miliband, Rayner, Haigh) see Burnham as a viable route back into frontline politics and the leadership contest.
Maguire writes that this “bloodless regicide” would suit most of the cabinet: it buys time, avoids a messy immediate leadership election, and gives Burnham a runway to return to the Commons and prepare.
https://x.com/lizwebstersbf/status/2047406359604302014
It seems totally conceivable that Starmer will announce his resignation immediately after the May elections, with the leader in place by the party conference. This will give Burnham plenty of time to get back into Parliament.
It is also conceivable that Burnham is coronated after getting a seat.
How do Chump and Heggers propose to drive Spain out of NATO, in the absence of a provision to do so?
And will they be dealing with their own Imperial Possessions?
Other bits, it sounds like Rayner WILL NOT stand for leader.
At most they make a "it isn't as bad as you think" argument. Which doesn't show much confidence in their own project.
Whatever the US says in any case Milei has said Argentina only wants a diplomatic settlement with the UK over the Falklands, he is not Galtieri 2.
Spain cannot be removed from Nato without a majority of Nato members agreeing whatever the US thinks
https://shows.acast.com/farage-the-podcast/episodes/episode-173-40-years-on-from-the-falklands-war
Now, I'm well aware of how hard it can be for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, but I'm sceptical that the problem is as bad as the data makes out. And, not wanting to get personal, but I'm guessing @Cyclefree doesn't have such a bad opinion of the men in her life (or maybe she does). Unless you're prepared to call out the men you care about, don't call out the rest of us.
Last week they were running 30-50% sales to generate cash to keep afloat whilst looking for an investor.
I still think it unlikely that Starmer goes willingly. He will have to be forced out.
I am taking no view about Brexit, EU membership or Scottish independence. But the pooling of sovereignty as to the UK and as to the EU are tough and underestimated realities.
If the EU were a highly developed free trade association and friction free market in goods and services, and not also a political union, there would be none of the argument.
It's like the "why should we attach ourselves to a backwater" argument. So we become a backwater to a backwater instead.
The other possibility that occurred was that the opponents of change were determined not to engage in any way to modify the bill in practical ways, but decided to obstruct the bill by any means available.
In both cases there is an aversion to constructive debate between people with opposing views. This reminds me of what happened in Britain following the Brexit referendum where, as antifrank argued, the winners failed to gain losers consent, and many did not feel that the 48% should have any say in how Brexit should be implemented, while many Remainers were determined that there should be a second referendum in an attempt to reverse the result of the first.
If democracy devolves to a series of tests of strength and abuse of procedure (e.g. prorogation, filibuster, etc) then it is much poorer and weaker than where genuine debate occurs and elements of common ground are found. It becomes more vulnerable to an authoritarian takeover.
I worry about the trajectory Britain is on.
What matters is if GDP is lower, and if there is no persuasive evidence of the latter, the former is of no consequence.
Also, on the point of businesses deciding where to locate, that only applies for businesses which must invest in a single plant to serve a huge continent - there are some of those, but they will be pretty marginal to an economy the size of ours. Our total exports to the EU are only 12-14% of GDP, gently declining for 30 years. Take from that service exports, which amount to around half that total, then focus on only those businesses in manufacturing with big economies of scale, then those that need to make an investment decision, and the effects of Brexit will get lost in the noise. Corporate tax and interest rates will be infinitely more important.
Party members should have no ability to elect a PM.
It’s fine but stupid that party members get to elect the party leader when in opposition but to do it in Government is to invite a leader such as Truss who promises stupid party specific things that members love and the general public hate (so are always been carefully removed from manifestos when the party wants to win) to get elected and then tries to implement
They can only do so after I have proven myself to them by my actions, and even then someone wishing to do ill may be able to maintain a facade for a time.
Checking the numbers quickly vi Google, we are No 9 in the league table of global manufacturing economies.
~400 MPs not wanting to be recorded as having a view, presumably due to not wanting to harm their re-election chances.
Majority 84 vs 55 dropping to 23 (605 MPs on the record)
Leader changes are generally ok if the new leader is either going to broadly maintain the manifesto or is going to seek a mandate shortly after taking office. It’s much more problematic when the debate becomes one of changing direction mid-term with no election imminent.
The overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed by men. The victims are overwhelmingly women and children.
Yes women want to have relationships with men - good relationships with good men. And very many do. I have had good and bad relationships, so has my daughter. So have most women.
And even when you are in a relationship you think is good, you can find out that your partner is cheating on you - very very common. Or worse - see Madame Pelicot. All the men involved there were also in relationships. We have our own examples here too.
There is an element of denial going on here. I am good, my friends and colleagues are good. We don't misbehave. Why is this awful woman berating me?
I am not berating you individually but the sex you belong to is one which has a well-established propensity for misbehaviour and if men were a bit more honest they would admit that it affects far more of them than is comfortable to accept. And so to do something about it - rather than simply talk - you have to accept the reality of the sex you belong to, the category you are in. And start from there.
Oh - and if the men I care about misbehave I do call them out.
The first priority of the government is defence. The second priority of the government should be energy prices.
So as soon as a candidate starts offering policy changes in return for votes you get a massive mess.
And the only way to deal with that is to keep the vote to MPs alone
But aren't you just posting a 'tourist guide' view ?
Old twee cottages and new skyscrapers might look pretty and affluent but your Remainia is filled with people weighed down with debt, unable to afford their own homes and under threat from globalisation and AI.
Whereas those Leave voting areas often have housing easily affordable to those with a useful skillset.
I, and almost all economists, would disagree that Brexit didn't result in relatively lower GDP, but we covered that in your previous thread.
Not sure what the fuss was about in terms of BBC and ITV asking for it to be changed .
And, by the way, a 'low tax' policy usually feels like a high tax policy as an alternative to a higher tax policy to non billionaires.
So the American plant may only employ a few hundred employees and make a limited direct contribution to GDP. But its employees spend money in the local economy, the plant buys goods and services from local suppliers supporting further employment, and further spending in the local economy from those employees. All that spending by employees in the local economy supports further employment in the area. And so you have a healthy local economy.
Without that central exporting business bringing money into the local economy there's no fundamental driving force for the local economy and it struggles with low demand.
Coincidence?
The bill proponents repeatedly refused to compromise. Maybe they can simply introduce a new bill next session, with amendments to improve it.
https://act.labour.org.uk/p/reform-revealed?utm_campaign=ENGAGEMENT+-+PEB+TRAIL+-+23042026&utm_medium=email&utm_source=movement
A Reform UK candidate in next month’s local elections was a “de facto senior diplomat” for the government of Hong Kong until two-and-a-half years ago and praised China’s repressive national security law. Sheung-yuen Lee, who is standing for Nigel Farage’s party in Ealing, did not respond to a request for comment.
Most people don't know anyone employed in manufacturing.
Most goods bought in this country have a 'Made in China' label if plastic or a 'Made in Bangladesh' label if textiles.
Uniting all these Labour arguments is the desire to increase returns to work by reducing the dominance of wealth in the economy. If that sounds expensive, some Labour MPs are willing to embrace it. One pointed to the origins of income tax 200 years ago as a way out of endless debates about raising taxes on workers to fund public services.
“In the Napoleonic wars they got most of their tax from excise duties but they didn’t just put those up, they invented a whole new tax,” the MP said. “The economy has become more wealth based but the tax base has not caught up.”
I grant you that rapists are pretty much all men. But firefighters are pretty much all men,and no-one disputes that firefighting takes place - but it would be absurd to say that a significant minority of any group of men are firefighters.
We’ve debated (on here) this far too many times over the years and we always end up with a wealth tax based on property and then as we go into detail we end up merging council tax into it and binning stamp duty
Heck it’s a shame that Yvette Cooper wasn’t Chancellor as she could have visited her old haunt and had a complete plan to give to the Treasury and HMRC and told them to get on with it
So extend council tax bands through to Z and then revalue every home.
The arrogance of the liberal left on bringing forward - however well meaning - such fundamentally flawed legislation as this absolutely deserves the oversight of the Lords.
It’s time for Starmer to go
Yes - I got married long after these assaults because I met a wonderful man with whom I fell in love. I very determinedly put the rape out of my mind because I felt shame and guilt and fear. I said nothing. Why? Protecting my family is one answer. Protecting myself from a painful legal process was another. I chose to forget and walk away rather than confront the perpetrator. Was that cowardly? Perhaps. I did not want to be a victim. Not denial of what happened, but denial of its power – its importance in shaping my life, my character, my choices. This happened to me. But it was not me. I would decide what events would define my life.
I speak about it now because it helps inform my views on the importance of boundaries and because silence aids the perpetrators and it is important to understand how widespread this is.
Presume it will be Daisy Cooper, certainly more charismatic.
Men who have enlightened attitudes towards women tend to reject from their groups men who don’t.
So you end up with men who don’t know anyone who is like that (as far as they know). Which creates a sample issue.