'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
Can anyone beat this price for two cappuccinos? €38 sitting down at Caffè Florian on Piazza San Marco, Venice. Includes compulsory €7 each for live music. But what a view!
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
a) It reads like a Compass meeting agenda
b) At least Labour would actually be fucking doing something if they did some of this. They were swept into power on a Change ticket and then did virtually nothing other than continuity Sunak (other than Ed M's energy stuff).
It is worth comparing Starmer with Blair. Minimum wage, foxhunting, devolution etc...
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
No you can't, Lords are peers of the realm, originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too.
You crack me up sometimes - you've literally just made my point for me by showing how they changed the definition at least once and so clearly could again, thus negating your argument that they cannot.
The best part is I know you realise that your statement proves my point, it's so blatant you obviously did it on purpose, but you get such a kick out of the 'never change your mind' thing you'll never break.
Kudos.
(Also, peerage is no longer really for life even for life peers, since they can resign a la Manedlson/Archer even if they for now keep title, so we can just restrict peerage still further to mean a 'serving member of the House of Lords/Peers' - this isn't rocket science if there was a will)
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
How do you scrap whipping? Even if one party does the others won't. Nationalise failing water companies definitely, can't cost anymore than than being fleeced by PE National care service - is that state run care homes? Again PE have fleeced that, if it can be done well could help council budgets
Don't see any point in nationalising other utilities His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
All this speculation about Burnham seems unlikely, not least it assumes other potential leaders are going to put on one side their ambitions for the return of someone who expects to win the crown without a contest
I assume next weekend, and before the King's speech, will be a very perilous time for Starmer (who is so unsuited to the job) and the opportunity for those hoping to claim the crown before the king of the north (which he is) attempts to roll up in the HOC
Not necessarily though, the latest Britain Votes Now forecast for next week is Reform to win most local council seats with 1393, then Labour second with 1253, the LDs third with 789, the Tories 4th with 721 and the Greens fifth with 631. If those were the results I expect Starmer survives
Another set of laughable predictions unfortunately.
Quite.
My expected seat ordering is Reform, Green, LD, Con, Lab. I feel very certain about 1, and think they'll be some way ahead. I feel that 2 and 3 will be pretty close, but with the Greens perhaps 50-100 seats ahead of the LDs. And I think 4 and 5 will be some way back again.
Of the last 5 GB polls, Reform lead in all of them, Labour lead the Greens in 4 of them and lead the LDs in all of them. That was before Polanski's Golders Green police gaffe today. The Tories are second in 3 of them. I think the Greens will make gains but underperform and Labour's expectations game is so low now Starmer can probably point to some swing on the upside when the results come in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Yes, but I'm talking seats.
The LDs will be nowhere in 55% of the country, and challenging hard in 45%.
Even on seats you would expect on the latest polling Labour to certainly beat the Greens and maybe even the LDs too given most seats up are in urban areas which favour Labour rather than the shires where the LDs do better
I'm expecting Labour to come 6th in seats in Kirklees, which is quite an electorally diverse and middling sort of metro.
And to be flattened in the more red wall metros.
A lot of their seat count is going to come from the large city metros where they will hold off the greens in places to some extent, but they are a minority of metro seats.
I think they have lost around 75-80% of council by election defences this year, and by eye NEVs between 2022-2024 were not radically different, so Labour council by-election defences should be livably representative of the May round. That's broadly in the -1500 to -1700 range.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it, if we have a fully elected Senate it would just be full of common Senators, not even life peers and Lord Bishops let alone the departing hereditaries
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
I look forward to the repeated trite arguments about mandate we get every time a PM changes, as media and politicians engage in collective selective amnesia about their former positions on whether it should mean we go to the country soon or not.
But looking at recent history going for an election in 1-2 years is pretty common anyway.
Sunak - GE in under 2 years (and at max could only have gone in just over 2 years anyway) Truss - never got the chance Boris - GE within a year May - GE within a year Brown - GE within 3 years (maximum) Major - GE within 2 years
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
No you can't, Lords are peers of the realm, originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too.
You crack me up sometimes - you've literally just made my point for me by showing how they changed the definition at least once and so clearly could again, thus negating your argument that they cannot.
The best part is I know you realise that your statement proves my point, it's so blatant you obviously did it on purpose, but you get such a kick out of the 'never change your mind' thing you'll never break.
Kudos.
(Also, peerage is no longer really for life even for life peers, since they can resign a la Manedlson/Archer even if they for now keep title, so we can just restrict peerage still further to mean a 'serving member of the House of Lords/Peers' - this isn't rocket science if there was a will)
No, a Lord by definition is not accountable to the voters. That is the whole point of them, even the life peers were meant to be immune to populism but take the longer term intellectual view as they never needed to be re elected and face election unlike MPs
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it, if we have a fully elected Senate it would just be full of common Senators, not even life peers and Lord Bishops let alone the departing hereditaries
There could be a living museum for those who want it. £50 for the full grovel experience where you can abase yourself at the feet of the Duke of Westminster or similar. They're just the descendants of the Michelle Mones and Doug Barrowmans of their time you fool.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
I have no issue with an elected upper house. Why not two representatives per county?
The Commons is the democratically elected chamber. There is no benefit whatsoever in imposing several hundred more career politicians on the country.
How about 792 unelected politicians?
Reduce to 500, exclude former MPs, political donors, and bag carriers for MPs, and up the number of 'lay' appointees and it'll be more like, say, 350 career politicians and 150 new politicians.
Not exactly going to sell it to anyone committed to having purely elected politicians, which is to be fair a reasonable position to take, but probably better than now.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it, if we have a fully elected Senate it would just be full of common Senators, not even life peers and Lord Bishops let alone the departing hereditaries
There could be a living museum for those who want it. £50 for the full grovel experience where you can abase yourself at the feet of the Duke of Westminster or similar. They're just the descendants of the Michelle Mones and Doug Barrowmans of their time you fool.
They are in still Lords, if you want an elected Senate fine but it will have no Lords
Some interesting ideas by Burnham-supportimg MP's being flioated around. Byelection within weeks, Starmer to stay on as Foreign Sec. That might be a bit of a atrange idea for him, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Cameron stayed on as Foreign Sec umder Sunak, waan't it.
Returned as, not stayed on.
The last PM to serve under his immediate successor was Neville Chamberlain in 1940, and the last to do so for any length of time was Russell in 1852. (Technically that was his successor but one, but after a very short gap.)
Um, Alec Douglas-Home was Foreign Secretary under his immediate successor Heath.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
No you can't, Lords are peers of the realm, originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too.
You crack me up sometimes - you've literally just made my point for me by showing how they changed the definition at least once and so clearly could again, thus negating your argument that they cannot.
The best part is I know you realise that your statement proves my point, it's so blatant you obviously did it on purpose, but you get such a kick out of the 'never change your mind' thing you'll never break.
Kudos.
(Also, peerage is no longer really for life even for life peers, since they can resign a la Manedlson/Archer even if they for now keep title, so we can just restrict peerage still further to mean a 'serving member of the House of Lords/Peers' - this isn't rocket science if there was a will)
No, a Lord by definition is not accountable to the voters. That is the whole point of them, even the life peers were meant to be immune to populism but take the longer term intellectual view as they never needed to be re elected and face election unlike MPs
Definitions. Can. Be. Changed.
You've already admitted they can be through your own post on the matter ("originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too" - a definition change of what a Lord means), so my advice would be not to rely on a 'by definition' argument, but instead an argument that retaining such a title would be confusing or silly. That's at least not logically contradictory.
Some interesting ideas by Burnham-supportimg MP's being flioated around. Byelection within weeks, Starmer to stay on as Foreign Sec. That might be a bit of a atrange idea for him, but I suppose stranger things have happened. Cameron stayed on as Foreign Sec umder Sunak, waan't it.
Returned as, not stayed on.
The last PM to serve under his immediate successor was Neville Chamberlain in 1940, and the last to do so for any length of time was Russell in 1852. (Technically that was his successor but one, but after a very short gap.)
Um, Alec Douglas-Home was Foreign Secretary under his immediate successor Heath.
Presumably the poster meant immediate successor as PM. Heath was Douglas-Home's immediate successor as Conservative leader, but not as PM.
Can anyone beat this price for two cappuccinos? €38 sitting down at Caffè Florian on Piazza San Marco, Venice. Includes compulsory €7 each for live music. But what a view!
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
I look forward to the repeated trite arguments about mandate we get every time a PM changes, as media and politicians engage in collective selective amnesia about their former positions on whether it should mean we go to the country soon or not.
But looking at recent history going for an election in 1-2 years is pretty common anyway.
Sunak - GE in under 2 years (and at max could only have gone in just over 2 years anyway) Truss - never got the chance Boris - GE within a year May - GE within a year Brown - GE within 3 years (maximum) Major - GE within 2 years
I think that confuses cause and effect. It's usual to have a leadership change close to an election, rather than 3 years out.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
No you can't, Lords are peers of the realm, originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too.
You crack me up sometimes - you've literally just made my point for me by showing how they changed the definition at least once and so clearly could again, thus negating your argument that they cannot.
The best part is I know you realise that your statement proves my point, it's so blatant you obviously did it on purpose, but you get such a kick out of the 'never change your mind' thing you'll never break.
Kudos.
(Also, peerage is no longer really for life even for life peers, since they can resign a la Manedlson/Archer even if they for now keep title, so we can just restrict peerage still further to mean a 'serving member of the House of Lords/Peers' - this isn't rocket science if there was a will)
No, a Lord by definition is not accountable to the voters. That is the whole point of them, even the life peers were meant to be immune to populism but take the longer term intellectual view as they never needed to be re elected and face election unlike MPs
Definitions. Can. Be. Changed.
You've already admitted they can be through your own post on the matter ("originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too" - a definition change of what a Lord means), so my advice would be not to rely on a 'by definition' argument, but instead an argument that retaining such a title would be confusing or silly. That's at least not logically contradictory.
No. They. Can't.
A Lord is someone who does NOT owe their position to election, it would be impossible to have a House of Lords which is elected, the moment they are elected they cease to be Lords as it is a position that cannot be removed, it is given for life or as a hereditary title. The dictionary definition even includes someone who 'lords it over someone to behave as if you are better than someone and have the right to tell them what to do'. Lords by definition don't care what the masses think of them, they are not elected politicians and never will be
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
A manifesto I would vote for. Fit to give a Telegraph columnist a coronary. But as I’ve never voted for anyone or thing that has won Andy best be careful.
BREAKING - HEGSETH ORDERS WITHDRAWAL OF 5,000 TROOPS FROM GERMANY, TO BE COMPLETED OVER NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS
"Please! I like America! Fancy schmancy! What a cinch! Go fly a kite! Cat got your tongue! Hill of beans! Karoline Leavitt, what a dish. Kristi Noem, nice gams."
If Streeting ignites a Labour leadership race post the May election results then how do we see it all playing out?
Very plausibly Starmer survives because the PLP decide that neither Streeting nor Rayner improves their chances of getting re-elected at the next General Election. But maybe there’s an unstoppable momentum for a change of leadership without an idea or plan as to who that person might be? In which case a compromise/unite/clean pair of hands candidate may emerge as the best option.
If this is how it plays out then I could see Shabana Mahmood as a potential winner. Anyone agree/disagree?
I could get behind most of that Burnham agenda. Regarding the Lords proposals, this should be the easiest on to push through, but with the lowest chance of actually getting through - because of the Lords themselves.
It will have broad support from Labour activists because it gives them a chance to get on the greasy pole.
The way to get Lords proposal through is to first cap the size of HoL as same size as HoC. To be achieved progressively by attrition - say 2 out 1 in until cap reached. Meanwhile all new members (whether appointed or elected) to be for single fixed term of 10 years only. No more Life Peers - no hereditiary peers - no religious appointments.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
Agreed. And if they want to keep using the title after the electorate has booted them out, so be it.
A Lord by definition should not ever need to care what the electorate think about them to keep their title, that was what distinguished them from the elected House of Commons and MPs in the first place! They were supposed to take a longer term view and not be prone to what the latest populist view of the masses was. MPs did need to care what voters thought of them to keep their title
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
Can anyone beat this price for two cappuccinos? €38 sitting down at Caffè Florian on Piazza San Marco, Venice. Includes compulsory €7 each for live music. But what a view!
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
Is it true the far right are after the Jews these days? Haven't the likes of Tommy Ten Names become big fans of Zionism and finding god seems to be all the rage now among those types (under the guise of Judo-Christian history of when England was great or something).
If Streeting ignites a Labour leadership race post the May election results then how do we see it all playing out?
Very plausibly Starmer survives because the PLP decide that neither Streeting nor Rayner improves their chances of getting re-elected at the next General Election. But maybe there’s an unstoppable momentum for a change of leadership without an idea or plan as to who that person might be? In which case a compromise/unite/clean pair of hands candidate may emerge as the best option.
If this is how it plays out then I could see Shabana Mahmood as a potential winner. Anyone agree/disagree?
Seems very unlikely to me.
As I have posted before my union and deep Labour activist friend says it's Burnham and I am betting accordingly.
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
Is it true the far right are after the Jews these days? Haven't the likes of Tommy Ten Names become big fans of Zionism and finding god seems to be all the rage now among those types (under the guise of Judo-Christian history of when England was great or something).
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
People blame social media but social media is actually people posting stuff. (Bots aside). Social media isn’t the issue. It’s the racists and anti-semites.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
Agreed. And if they want to keep using the title after the electorate has booted them out, so be it.
A Lord by definition should not ever need to care what the electorate think about them to keep their title, that was what distinguished them from the elected House of Commons and MPs in the first place! They were supposed to take a longer term view and not be prone to what the latest populist view of the masses was. MPs did need to care what voters thought of them to keep their title
A single fixed term would have the same effect.
No it wouldn't as they would still need to get elected to that single fixed term in the first place
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
If Streeting ignites a Labour leadership race post the May election results then how do we see it all playing out?
Very plausibly Starmer survives because the PLP decide that neither Streeting nor Rayner improves their chances of getting re-elected at the next General Election. But maybe there’s an unstoppable momentum for a change of leadership without an idea or plan as to who that person might be? In which case a compromise/unite/clean pair of hands candidate may emerge as the best option.
If this is how it plays out then I could see Shabana Mahmood as a potential winner. Anyone agree/disagree?
Seems very unlikely to me.
As I have posted before my union and deep Labour activist friend says it's Burnham and I am betting accordingly.
If Streeting pulls the trigger after the local elections then Burnham isn't even at the track.
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
Is it true the far right are after the Jews these days? Haven't the likes of Tommy Ten Names become big fans of Zionism and finding god seems to be all the rage now among those types (under the guise of Judo-Christian history of when England was great or something).
You can make an argument Islamists are far right, if you like.
BREAKING - HEGSETH ORDERS WITHDRAWAL OF 5,000 TROOPS FROM GERMANY, TO BE COMPLETED OVER NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS
Of 36,000 currently present.
Withdrawing 5.000 troops could be done in a weekend. A 6-12 month timespan suggests it is empty rhetoric to get back at Merz or just possibly Hegseth is closing an entire base which he will not realise creates problems for when they next need it.
ETA hold on, Greenland's in Europe (officially) and has American bases...
Trump and Netanyahu’s wars in the Middle East have elevated threat to British Jews, MI5 warns ... MI5 warned that “we are also seeing a sustained and significant tempo of state-linked threats, including to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions”. It said the decision to raise the threat level had been taken after the stabbings in north London, but it was not solely as a result of the incident. One of the motivations for raising the terror threat level is to try to dissuade potential copycat attacks, it is understood. ... One intelligence official told The Independent it would “be a mistake” to draw direct links between the alleged Golders Green attacker, who is known to have mental health issues, and organised terrorism against all Jews. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iran-war-middle-east-trump-british-jews-mi5-b2968741.html
Someone's not read the script, or the room.
ETA hold on. Raising the threat level is not because of increased threats but to dissuade potential copycats?
ETA 2: and the Golders Green terrorist was not a terrorist.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
No you can't, Lords are peers of the realm, originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too.
You crack me up sometimes - you've literally just made my point for me by showing how they changed the definition at least once and so clearly could again, thus negating your argument that they cannot.
The best part is I know you realise that your statement proves my point, it's so blatant you obviously did it on purpose, but you get such a kick out of the 'never change your mind' thing you'll never break.
Kudos.
(Also, peerage is no longer really for life even for life peers, since they can resign a la Manedlson/Archer even if they for now keep title, so we can just restrict peerage still further to mean a 'serving member of the House of Lords/Peers' - this isn't rocket science if there was a will)
No, a Lord by definition is not accountable to the voters. That is the whole point of them, even the life peers were meant to be immune to populism but take the longer term intellectual view as they never needed to be re elected and face election unlike MPs
Definitions. Can. Be. Changed.
You've already admitted they can be through your own post on the matter ("originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too" - a definition change of what a Lord means), so my advice would be not to rely on a 'by definition' argument, but instead an argument that retaining such a title would be confusing or silly. That's at least not logically contradictory.
No. They. Can't.
A Lord is someone who does NOT owe their position to election, it would be impossible to have a House of Lords which is elected, the moment they are elected they cease to be Lords as it is a position that cannot be removed, it is given for life or as a hereditary title. The dictionary definition even includes someone who 'lords it over someone to behave as if you are better than someone and have the right to tell them what to do'. Lords by definition don't care what the masses think of them, they are not elected politicians and never will be
You're missing the point, HY.
By making them ejected, and still calling them "Lords", you completely devalue the hereditary or lifetime title. And you're demonstrating that "Lords" are only there at the behest of common electors.
The MAGA Congress is losing motivation to follow the lead of its craven Speaker.
The House GOP finally caved in to reality and joined House Democrats, Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans in voting to fund the rest of DHS except for the dangerously lawless ICE and Border Patrol.
Why did Speaker Johnson make hardworking FEMA officials, TSA and Secret Service agents and other federal workers wait more than two months to receive their regular paychecks? https://x.com/RepRaskin/status/2049925015324287397
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
No you can't, Lords are peers of the realm, originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too.
You crack me up sometimes - you've literally just made my point for me by showing how they changed the definition at least once and so clearly could again, thus negating your argument that they cannot.
The best part is I know you realise that your statement proves my point, it's so blatant you obviously did it on purpose, but you get such a kick out of the 'never change your mind' thing you'll never break.
Kudos.
(Also, peerage is no longer really for life even for life peers, since they can resign a la Manedlson/Archer even if they for now keep title, so we can just restrict peerage still further to mean a 'serving member of the House of Lords/Peers' - this isn't rocket science if there was a will)
No, a Lord by definition is not accountable to the voters. That is the whole point of them, even the life peers were meant to be immune to populism but take the longer term intellectual view as they never needed to be re elected and face election unlike MPs
Definitions. Can. Be. Changed.
You've already admitted they can be through your own post on the matter ("originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too" - a definition change of what a Lord means), so my advice would be not to rely on a 'by definition' argument, but instead an argument that retaining such a title would be confusing or silly. That's at least not logically contradictory.
No. They. Can't.
A Lord is someone who does NOT owe their position to election, it would be impossible to have a House of Lords which is elected, the moment they are elected they cease to be Lords as it is a position that cannot be removed, it is given for life or as a hereditary title. The dictionary definition even includes someone who 'lords it over someone to behave as if you are better than someone and have the right to tell them what to do'. Lords by definition don't care what the masses think of them, they are not elected politicians and never will be
You're missing the point, HY.
By making them ejected, and still calling them "Lords", you completely devalue the hereditary or lifetime title. And you're demonstrating that "Lords" are only there at the behest of common electors.
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
That MAYBE prefix I suspect would apply to three quarters of the list.
His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
I look forward to the repeated trite arguments about mandate we get every time a PM changes, as media and politicians engage in collective selective amnesia about their former positions on whether it should mean we go to the country soon or not.
But looking at recent history going for an election in 1-2 years is pretty common anyway.
Sunak - GE in under 2 years (and at max could only have gone in just over 2 years anyway) Truss - never got the chance Boris - GE within a year May - GE within a year Brown - GE within 3 years (maximum) Major - GE within 2 years
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
I'm sitting in the Glyn Ceiriog hotel with a pint and dinner on the way.*
A bit like TSE, no time to follow the news. So when did WWIII break out?
*This is quite poignant for me in a number of ways. My father lived in Oswestry and was the vet for the Ceiriog and Dee valleys before moving to Gloucestershire, so he frequently brought us here for short holidays. Normally we would stay at the West Arms in Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog, but I couldn't quite make the numbers work on a stay there. This one, where I got a largeish discount, works better.
So I will be waking to the sound of the Afon Ceiriog and the hills above Llangollen as I often did in my childhood - but I'll be on my own this time.
Hoping to get some cycling in if the weather's not too terrible, and some hill walking if it is.
Saw a snippet of a story yesterday, presumably AI generated, since it was about someone who was involved in World War Eleven.
Either that or a time traveller from the most dystopian future imaginable.
Didn’t Trump criticise congresswomen Omar (?) for creating World War II as “eleven”?
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
Hereditaries still differentiate between pre- and post- Lloyd George
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it
Of course you can, it's just a name - we have 700 people in it right now who have no hereditary title but we randomly say 'OK, you are a "Lord" for life now. Or until you resign from this place'. Ask someone 130 years ago and I'd bet they'd say the people we call Lords now are not really Lords as they cannot pass on their titles.
Lord could just be a term we use for someone elected to the second chamber, it isn't a natural law that they have to be called Senators, which is just as random as "Lord" for some former academic or charity worker (or Spad) who has been appointed.
No you can't, Lords are peers of the realm, originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too.
An elected Senator is not a peer of the realm and never will be so an elected Senate can on no definition be a House of Lords as they depend on the whims of the voters for their place, they don't have it for life like life peers or for their children too like hereditary peers
Psst. Did anyone tell you that the Tories aren’t really Irish bandits?
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
Difficulty also depends on who you're playing against and your own side. Much easier to be Byzantium than Georgia. (In Civ VI, anyway, not played VII).
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Not just dementia, but also a rather bizare grandiosity.
See this latest. Unusual to see a doctor wearing a crown of thorns:
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
It's not a surprise that humans start with the conclusion they want and then select evidence to fit.
That people can do it quite so loudly and blatantly as Team MAGA are... That's a bit of a surprise.
Interesting that Boris Johnson is now saying we should embrace a decline in the population level and not listen to scaremongering politicians who say that we need to import workers to "do the jobs".
If there's a leadership election I'm going to be a single-issue proportional representation voter. Sticking with FPTP under the current conditions is entirely mad and very irresponsible, I will vote for whoever has a plan to fix it.
The AV referendum NO vote was a disaster in the end.
Party that alienated half it's vote then tries to introduce a change to the voting system that almost solely benefits itself and gets told where to stick it. It wasn't really a surprise. What's the system though? In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
Difficulty also depends on who you're playing against and your own side. Much easier to be Byzantium than Georgia. (In Civ VI, anyway, not played VII).
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
The man seems to have run Manchester pretty well - at least not mucked it up completely. Starmer has never run so much as a successful whelk stall - hair turning stories are emerging about his time as DPP.
Whether he is half decent or a quarter decent, Burnham is by some measure the best option - and I say that as someone who is very much against his political vision.
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
Difficulty also depends on who you're playing against and your own side. Much easier to be Byzantium than Georgia. (In Civ VI, anyway, not played VII).
I still prefer Civ III to be honest!
Of the main games, I've only played II and VI (console gamer). But my point about difficulty varying by other players and your own Civ stands. It's a bit similar to Stellaris, which can be way easier or harder depending on start location and what your first neighbours are like.
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
People blame social media but social media is actually people posting stuff. (Bots aside). Social media isn’t the issue. It’s the racists and anti-semites.
Up to a point.
There have always been appalling beliefs circulation in the human psyche. Mostly at a fairly low level, like an endemic virus. That weird uncle who you quickly learned to never talk about the Germans to. And from time-to-time, that virus would explode into the wider population.
Even healthy social media is a bit of a problem there. We're all more content choosing our own tribe, and for some it's a lifesaver. But it does make it more likely that we don't realise how unpleasant our individual weird and unpleasant beliefs are. The collapse of journalistically curated news media is a big loss to society; even when they failed, there was usually an attempt to reflect what was actually going on.
Go beyond that, to the sort of social media that rewards bad-faith rage because it keeps suckers on the site... It's a wonder that we're not in a worse state than we are.
Peter Kay show evacuated mid-performance over 'suspicious bag' ... West Midlands Police said the site was searched and a 19-year-old man was in custody https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g4xkw87p5o
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The question on grift is whether the Trump Crime Syndicate manage to "acquire" billions or tens of billions illicitly. Going by things like this, I suspect comfortably the latter. Yet all he needs to do to get those concerned about government inefficiency and waste back on board is mention dei.
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
People blame social media but social media is actually people posting stuff. (Bots aside). Social media isn’t the issue. It’s the racists and anti-semites.
Up to a point.
There have always been appalling beliefs circulation in the human psyche. Mostly at a fairly low level, like an endemic virus. That weird uncle who you quickly learned to never talk about the Germans to. And from time-to-time, that virus would explode into the wider population.
Even healthy social media is a bit of a problem there. We're all more content choosing our own tribe, and for some it's a lifesaver. But it does make it more likely that we don't realise how unpleasant our individual weird and unpleasant beliefs are. The collapse of journalistically curated news media is a big loss to society; even when they failed, there was usually an attempt to reflect what was actually going on.
Go beyond that, to the sort of social media that rewards bad-faith rage because it keeps suckers on the site... It's a wonder that we're not in a worse state than we are.
Peter Kay show evacuated mid-performance over 'suspicious bag' ... West Midlands Police said the site was searched and a 19-year-old man was in custody https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g4xkw87p5o
All those people turned up for hilarious stories about what his Nan does at funerals must be devastated.
Peter Kay show evacuated mid-performance over 'suspicious bag' ... West Midlands Police said the site was searched and a 19-year-old man was in custody https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g4xkw87p5o
All those people turned up for hilarious stories about what his Nan does at funerals must be devastated.
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The question on grift is whether the Trump Crime Syndicate manage to "acquire" billions or tens of billions illicitly. Going by things like this, I suspect comfortably the latter. Yet all he needs to do to get those concerned about government inefficiency and waste back on board is mention dei.
On one hand, you have to admit - they are impressively good at it. The scale is jaw-dropping.
But you do also have to hope a vindictive prosecutor comes in and takes every cent they have off the entire clan. Or perhaps do what MBS did - put them all under house arrest in a luxury hotel until they hand it over.
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
An elected upper chamber is just barmy. It should be a mix of appointees and experts, strongly biased towards the latter.
Given it took 27 years to move from excluding most hereditaries to excluding them all, then if the goal is a fully elected upper chamber - as many want - then we might as well target it for 2050, no need to rush, clearly.
More seriously, it would force questions about the current constitutional settlement between the chambers, which does not seem worth getting into right now.
Less seriously, I hope they retain the name House of Lords if/when they go for fully elected - Senate is so common and boring now, and what harm using the historical title?
I remember a poll on Lib Dem Voice about 15 years ago where various options were suggested, one of which was 'The Other Place', as a funny nod to how the chambers refer to each other.
You can't have a House of Lords without any Lords in it, if we have a fully elected Senate it would just be full of common Senators, not even life peers and Lord Bishops let alone the departing hereditaries
There could be a living museum for those who want it. £50 for the full grovel experience where you can abase yourself at the feet of the Duke of Westminster or similar. They're just the descendants of the Michelle Mones and Doug Barrowmans of their time you fool.
They are in still Lords, if you want an elected Senate fine but it will have no Lords
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHUCKED OUT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO,
I wish politicians would stop the apologies that aren’t apologies .
Polanski never apologised for the content of the re-tweet . He still thinks the police over reacted . It seems as if he believes police officers with just seconds to react should just sing kumbaya and ask the attacker nicely to drop the knife !
He’s not a serious politician and anyone thinking he’s PM material should seek an intervention!
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
It would be interesting to see how his policies (as outlined by someone earlier) work out nationally. That £2 single cap on bus fares, for example - does he know how long some single journeys can be out in the sticks?
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The question on grift is whether the Trump Crime Syndicate manage to "acquire" billions or tens of billions illicitly. Going by things like this, I suspect comfortably the latter. Yet all he needs to do to get those concerned about government inefficiency and waste back on board is mention dei.
On one hand, you have to admit - they are impressively good at it. The scale is jaw-dropping.
But you do also have to hope a vindictive prosecutor comes in and takes every cent they have off the entire clan. Or perhaps do what MBS did - put them all under house arrest in a luxury hotel until they hand it over.
They will get pardons so federal laws don't apply. Some chance a state prosecutor has some impact, but only at the margins.
PBers who spent literally years obsessing over the pitiful Hunter Biden, claiming it somehow implicated his father, are remarkably silent about this stuff.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The question on grift is whether the Trump Crime Syndicate manage to "acquire" billions or tens of billions illicitly. Going by things like this, I suspect comfortably the latter. Yet all he needs to do to get those concerned about government inefficiency and waste back on board is mention dei.
On one hand, you have to admit - they are impressively good at it. The scale is jaw-dropping.
But you do also have to hope a vindictive prosecutor comes in and takes every cent they have off the entire clan. Or perhaps do what MBS did - put them all under house arrest in a luxury hotel until they hand it over.
They will get pardons so federal laws don't apply. Some chance a state prosecutor has some impact, but only at the margins.
It's a great scheme - steal so much that after the pardons, you can buy the next election too.
BREAKING - HEGSETH ORDERS WITHDRAWAL OF 5,000 TROOPS FROM GERMANY, TO BE COMPLETED OVER NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS
Of 36,000 currently present.
Withdrawing 5.000 troops could be done in a weekend. A 6-12 month timespan suggests it is empty rhetoric to get back at Merz or just possibly Hegseth is closing an entire base which he will not realise creates problems for when they next need it.
ETA hold on, Greenland's in Europe (officially) and has American bases...
I don't really get the antipathy toward Burnham in some Labour-sympathetic circles. It's lucky for you that anyone half decent actually wants to take over the Labour shitshow. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and talking yourself into sticking with Sir Security Risk.
The problem is that he *isn’t* half decent
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
It would be interesting to see how his policies (as outlined by someone earlier) work out nationally. That £2 single cap on bus fares, for example - does he know how long some single journeys can be out in the sticks?
We had the £2 bus cap policy in place for 2023 and 2024 so we know how it works:
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
Trump: "Somalia, it's a beautiful place. It's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong -- crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting dirty. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her. Isn't she despicable? We ought to get those people the hell out of our country."
Remember - the GOP and 40% of voters LOVE when he does this stuff. They're looking at it and going 'He is so cool and strong for going after that person we hate'.
Maybe 3-5% are inwardly cringing a bit.
What's more worrying is that they're not noticing the clear signs of dementia.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
Trump's issue is almost certainly very different from Biden's.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
MiL had a form of this but it seems to be an indicator of approaching demise. In her case it was 5 years. Does he know he's unlikely to be 48th?
The US constitution may prevent him from a 3rd term as President, but does it preclude him from being the 1st Emperor of the United States of America, Canada and Greenland?
'The Burnham manifesto: •Rejoin the European Union •Break the fiscal rules to borrow more for defence. Thus destroying the fiscal rules… •Extensive devolution, including tax powers. •A wealth tax •Nationalise water, energy, utilities, and what remains of rail •A land value tax •A council tax revaluation •A ‘National Care Service’ •Rollout of nationalised bus franchising, modelled on Greater Manchester’s Bee Network •A £2 single fare bus cap •A fully elected upper chamber to replace the Lords •Bring in “free transport for teenagers in England.” •No welfare reforms. •Build more council houses. By borrowing £40 billion… •Scrap the whipping system in the Commons. An old favourite, truly barmy… •MAYBE: Proportional representation. Once behind the No10 door, people tend to lose interest in that one…'
Titillating, to say nothing else. In the round it’s a good thing that we have one politician willing to stick their neck out on policy.
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
More & more borrowing really concerns me. Seems to be the answer to everything, but I thought it was pretty well agreed it's mortgaging the future for our young people.
Comments
For reasons discussed length on PB, the wealth tax, free transport, and full nationalisation are all things that won’t work. It’s too soon for rejoin but good to see someone represent the large majority.
Paul Lewis
@paullewismoney
Can anyone beat this price for two cappuccinos? €38 sitting down at Caffè Florian on Piazza San Marco, Venice. Includes compulsory €7 each for live music. But what a view!
https://x.com/paullewismoney/status/2050289206094623064
The best part is I know you realise that your statement proves my point, it's so blatant you obviously did it on purpose, but you get such a kick out of the 'never change your mind' thing you'll never break.
Kudos.
(Also, peerage is no longer really for life even for life peers, since they can resign a la Manedlson/Archer even if they for now keep title, so we can just restrict peerage still further to mean a 'serving member of the House of Lords/Peers' - this isn't rocket science if there was a will)
BREAKING - HEGSETH ORDERS WITHDRAWAL OF 5,000 TROOPS FROM GERMANY, TO BE COMPLETED OVER NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS
Nationalise failing water companies definitely, can't cost anymore than than being fleeced by PE
National care service - is that state run care homes? Again PE have fleeced that, if it can be done well could help council budgets
Don't see any point in nationalising other utilities
His big difficulty will be a lack of a mandate, the press will campaign vehemently against his programme.
And to be flattened in the more red wall metros.
A lot of their seat count is going to come from the large city metros where they will hold off the greens in places to some extent, but they are a minority of metro seats.
I think they have lost around 75-80% of council by election defences this year, and by eye NEVs between 2022-2024 were not radically different, so Labour council by-election defences should be livably representative of the May round. That's broadly in the -1500 to -1700 range.
Next up, Hegseth announces the Cutting Off Noses to Spite Faces initiative.
Also known as the Trump Doctrine.
But looking at recent history going for an election in 1-2 years is pretty common anyway.
Sunak - GE in under 2 years (and at max could only have gone in just over 2 years anyway)
Truss - never got the chance
Boris - GE within a year
May - GE within a year
Brown - GE within 3 years (maximum)
Major - GE within 2 years
Hmm....
They're just the descendants of the Michelle Mones and Doug Barrowmans of their time you fool.
Not exactly going to sell it to anyone committed to having purely elected politicians, which is to be fair a reasonable position to take, but probably better than now.
You've already admitted they can be through your own post on the matter ("originally hereditary and since the 20th century life peers too" - a definition change of what a Lord means), so my advice would be not to rely on a 'by definition' argument, but instead an argument that retaining such a title would be confusing or silly. That's at least not logically contradictory.
A Lord is someone who does NOT owe their position to election, it would be impossible to have a House of Lords which is elected, the moment they are elected they cease to be Lords as it is a position that cannot be removed, it is given for life or as a hereditary title. The dictionary definition even includes someone who 'lords it over someone to behave as if you are better than someone and have the right to tell them what to do'. Lords by definition don't care what the masses think of them, they are not elected politicians and never will be
Very plausibly Starmer survives because the PLP decide that neither Streeting nor Rayner improves their chances of getting re-elected at the next General Election. But maybe there’s an unstoppable momentum for a change of leadership without an idea or plan as to who that person might be? In which case a compromise/unite/clean pair of hands candidate may emerge as the best option.
If this is how it plays out then I could see Shabana Mahmood as a potential winner. Anyone agree/disagree?
Hard to disagree with what he had to say . It used to be that the next generation would have better life chances but that’s not happening now .
Everyone wants government goodies handed over and politicians are just carrying on with the short termism .
No one is brave enough to stand up and just tell the truth .
At some point it will no longer be possible to keep the delusion going .
With the Greens peddling la la land and Reforms answer to the countries problems is deporting a load of people.
It’s really just shuffling the scapegoats around and when things are still not going well what then ?
Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
EXCLUSIVE with
@davidwoode
The UK’s most senior police officer has warned that British Jews are facing their greatest ever threat as he blamed social media for fuelling an “epidemic” of antisemitism
Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that Jewish people were at the centre of a “ghastly Venn diagram of hate” as they were targeted by extremists and terrorists on the left and right, as well as state-backed actors
In an interview with The Times, he said that while the police could deal with the “symptoms” of the problem, successive governments had failed to do enough to tackle the “disease”
He called for a national debate about the “appalling” level of hostility directed at Jewish communities
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2050331225378971729
As I have posted before my union and deep Labour activist friend says it's Burnham and I am betting accordingly.
ETA hold on, Greenland's in Europe (officially) and has American bases...
...
MI5 warned that “we are also seeing a sustained and significant tempo of state-linked threats, including to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions”. It said the decision to raise the threat level had been taken after the stabbings in north London, but it was not solely as a result of the incident. One of the motivations for raising the terror threat level is to try to dissuade potential copycat attacks, it is understood.
...
One intelligence official told The Independent it would “be a mistake” to draw direct links between the alleged Golders Green attacker, who is known to have mental health issues, and organised terrorism against all Jews.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iran-war-middle-east-trump-british-jews-mi5-b2968741.html
Someone's not read the script, or the room.
ETA hold on. Raising the threat level is not because of increased threats but to dissuade potential copycats?
ETA 2: and the Golders Green terrorist was not a terrorist.
By making them ejected, and still calling them "Lords", you completely devalue the hereditary or lifetime title.
And you're demonstrating that "Lords" are only there at the behest of common electors.
I could see that idea appealing to Labour.
The House GOP finally caved in to reality and joined House Democrats, Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans in voting to fund the rest of DHS except for the dangerously lawless ICE and Border Patrol.
Why did Speaker Johnson make hardworking FEMA officials, TSA and Secret Service agents and other federal workers wait more than two months to receive their regular paychecks?
https://x.com/RepRaskin/status/2049925015324287397
DC pollster just texted me “it’s over” after Donald Trump’s speech today where he called “affordability” a “line of bullshit.”
There is not one Republican lawmaker who is up in 2028 that didn’t just shit their pants. He just gave Democrats the perfect ad.
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/2050328623811297724
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president promises the US president a tungsten mine.
36 days later, Trump's sons buy shares in the company that will receive it.
9 days later, the deal is official with 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money.
Three times within one year, the same pattern: Sons buy in, father delivers the contract.
In August 2025, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a small New York construction firm called Skyline Builders. They buy through a vehicle named American Ventures, a subsidiary of Dominari Securities. Dominari brought the Trump sons onto its advisory board at the end of 2024. They also hold a stake in the parent company there.
Skyline is, at this point, an unremarkable holding company for Asian construction business. Nobody writes about it.
On September 22, Kazakhstan's president Tokayev meets Donald Trump and promises him: A US investment group called Cove Kaz will get the world's largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. Cove Kaz had competed against Chinese and Russian bidders. Tokayev chooses the Americans.
This promise is informal. No contract, no official decision. Just a promise between two presidents.
On October 21, the press reports on this agreement for the first time.
Seven days later, on October 28, the Trump sons pump more money into Skyline. As part of a capital increase of just under 24 million dollars.
Three days later, on October 31, Skyline buys a 20 percent stake for 20 million dollars in a company with, quote from the filing, "significant holdings of critical minerals in Asia." This company is Kaz Resources, a subsidiary of Cove Capital, which will develop the tungsten project.
On November 6, Cove Kaz and Kazakhstan announce the deal officially. 70 percent of the mine belongs to Cove. 30 percent to the Kazakh state. Planned investment amount: 1.1 billion dollars.
The US government gets involved. The state-owned US Export-Import Bank issues a commitment for up to 900 million dollars in project financing. The state-owned US Development Bank adds up to 700 million dollars. That makes up to 1.6 billion dollars in taxpayer money together.
On April 30, 2026, Skyline and Cove Kaz merge. The merged company goes public on Nasdaq. Planned ticker: KAZR.
The names of the Trump sons do not appear in a single press release...
https://x.com/FurkanCCTV/status/2050252134885789968
After ignoring economic geography with Brexit, why not add ignoring the economics of demographics too? It'll be fun.
F1: sleepy as hell. Will see about posting something later this morning.
They claimed every stumble of Biden was a sign of desperate decline and decay (and some of them were, although it wasn't nearly as severe as the likes of Leon pretended) but ignore the far greater evidence of far worse issues with Trump.
He’s done well enough on “chieftain” level, but when he tried warlord he flamed out badly.
PM is at least Emperor…
See this latest. Unusual to see a doctor wearing a crown of thorns:
https://bsky.app/profile/joncooper-us.bsky.social/post/3mkt2mns3n22u
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2026/05/miami-2026-pre-sprint-nonsense-and.html
That people can do it quite so loudly and blatantly as Team MAGA are... That's a bit of a surprise.
What's the system though?
In my politics lessons the teacher was hugely pro STV but didn't have an understanding of how it is gamed by parties fielding fewer candidates than the constituency maximum.
Trump seems to have frontal lobe dementia, whose many symptoms are a lack of inhibition and reduced empathy.
Biden was more Alzheimer's - severe memory loss. Trump may have that to some extent as well - they aren't mutually exclusive. But this explains their very different behaviour patterns.
Whether he is half decent or a quarter decent, Burnham is by some measure the best option - and I say that as someone who is very much against his political vision.
There have always been appalling beliefs circulation in the human psyche. Mostly at a fairly low level, like an endemic virus. That weird uncle who you quickly learned to never talk about the Germans to. And from time-to-time, that virus would explode into the wider population.
Even healthy social media is a bit of a problem there. We're all more content choosing our own tribe, and for some it's a lifesaver. But it does make it more likely that we don't realise how unpleasant our individual weird and unpleasant beliefs are. The collapse of journalistically curated news media is a big loss to society; even when they failed, there was usually an attempt to reflect what was actually going on.
Go beyond that, to the sort of social media that rewards bad-faith rage because it keeps suckers on the site... It's a wonder that we're not in a worse state than we are.
...
West Midlands Police said the site was searched and a 19-year-old man was in custody
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g4xkw87p5o
Probably days.
Maybe hours.
...
While the UK and US source most of their antibiotics from India, India actually relies on China for 91.5 per cent of its antibiotics ingredients, the report from think tank Council on Geostrategy reveals
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15769779/China-antibiotics-supply-Britain-vulnerable-report.html
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116502804889768576
But you do also have to hope a vindictive prosecutor comes in and takes every cent they have off the entire clan. Or perhaps do what MBS did - put them all under house arrest in a luxury hotel until they hand it over.
Polanski never apologised for the content of the re-tweet . He still thinks the police over reacted . It seems as if he believes police officers with just seconds to react should just sing kumbaya and ask the attacker nicely to drop the knife !
He’s not a serious politician and anyone thinking he’s PM material should seek an intervention!
Rinse the voters, repeat.
America deserves to die if so.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/681b355b9ef97b58cce3e4e0/evaluation-of-the-first-10-months-of-the-2-bus-fare-cap.pdf
Thoughts and prayers for the Yoon community, all that time wasted on ‘hilarious’ AI slop.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/trump-credits-swinneys-big-part-in-ending-whisky-tariff-j9nw5t256
Sprint Airlines goes bust due to oil prices.