Has Rayner and others thought just how the electorate will act if Burnham stands in any seat on the basis he is walking into Downing street as the de facto PM ?
Apart from finding a winning seat, why would the constituents accept being used ?
The whole idea is surreal and will have serious problems for labour and the country, not least with the bond markets
If Burnham can't win a by election in a favourable seat, he doesn't deserve to be a part of any future Labour leadership contest.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
NARRATOR: England and Wales now have the highest rate of recorded rapes in the world
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
NARRATOR: England and Wales now have the highest rate of recorded rapes in the world
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
Good grief. It was a JOKE. Self deprecating my tendency to claim primacy, seniority, and immortal foresight
I thought that was obvious when I added "but I also personally voted for him as my MP"
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
Has Rayner and others thought just how the electorate will act if Burnham stands in any seat on the basis he is walking into Downing street as the de facto PM ?
Apart from finding a winning seat, why would the constituents accept being used ?
The whole idea is surreal and will have serious problems for labour and the country, not least with the bond markets
If Burnham can't win a by election in a favourable seat, he doesn't deserve to be a part of any future Labour leadership contest.
To my mind, his decision to leave parliament rather than stick it out and take his chance means he doesn't deserve to be in this leadership contest.
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
Fair enough, but you must accept that you are unusual
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
I think it's a mix -- I think of the UK as home, but my perception of what "home* is and how my home is doing is strongly shaped by what I see and experience every day in the local area around me. As it gets further away and for places I haven't been it gets a bit more abstract --:if I go to Cornwall or Manchester or York I feel familiarity and at home there: these places are not so distant and not greatly different from where I live in the south of England . Edinburgh, also, but so far away it gets a bit more tenuous. And Belfast I have no emotional connection with at all -- considering whether it should stay in the UK or become part of Ireland I have no instinctive or emotional take: it's as abstract to me as whether Quebec should secede from Canada or not.
Go to Belfast. It is definitely part of Britain, and yet ALSO part of Ireland, at the same time
In some ways it is the most British place in Britain. It's also brilliant, as is the whole of Northern Ireland. Under-rated and very very beautiful. And great oysters, shared with Ireland, on Carlingford Lough
But not ‘our island’ which we will defend, but part of another island.
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
Good grief. It was a JOKE. Self deprecating my tendency to claim primacy, seniority, and immortal foresight
I thought that was obvious when I added "but I also personally voted for him as my MP"
There's a great gulf between your judgement and that of Clive Lewis. Obviously you're a bit of a fool, but Lewis is in a Mordor like abyss intellectually.
Mordor is not known for its abysses. Perhaps you mean Khazad-dûm?
Talking of toast, I just made my first ever steak tartare, from scratch (ingredients from Camden Sainsbury's) - with toasted sourdough drizzled with olive oil and sprinkled with Cornish sea salt (served from a special Cornish serpentine salt bowl)
Delish! Who knew. I think the Serpentine was crucial, but anyway. So easy!
Enjoyed with an excellent, very very cold Whitehaven Sauv Blanc (NZ)
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
Burnham is one of the main ways out of Starmer.
They are being given what they want.
If it is seat in the North West he will walk it.
Are you sure ?
It isn't clear Labour could hold any seat in a by election right now. If there were even a hint of contrivance in any such contest the vote would surely go against them.
If the Burnham camp are so stupid as to believe they can lever in their man in this way we can only hope and pray they are shot down in flames in order to save us all from their ineptitude in government.
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
Sensible Tories need to start preparing for a coalition
These local election results should end Conservative delusions of a party revival
This bizarre narrative persists in Tory world: “Kemi Badenoch is leading a revival of the party”. This inexplicably developed when the party’s national opinion poll ratings remained sub-20 points. It persists even after these elections, where they lost more than 500 council seats in England, saw their Welsh Senedd seats drop by 22 to 7, and their Scottish Parliament seats drop by 19 to 12.
Tories push this message after losing control of councils in their heartlands of Essex and Suffolk, amongst half a dozen council losses. They push it even as they failed to re-take Wandsworth. All on the basis of what? The fact they regained control of their flagship Westminster council and held middle-class councils in the prosperous South? This is a strange measure of success.
Reform, meanwhile, secured nearly 1,500 council seats across England – many of them at the direct expense of the Conservative Party. Reform’s performance wasn’t that of an irritating challenger party like Ukip used to be, but of a party heading for Downing Street.
It’s getting rather unseemly now Jacob, this endless whimpering and begging.
NO DEALS WITH THE TORIES.
You lot can go down with the ship that you made for yourselves by betraying the country.
Yeah, no chance of any deal. I’m not sure why people keep thinking there is.
There's every chance. It's right that there's no quarter being given now. The parties need to campaign and grow separately. When there's a choice between power or a LabGreenLib coalition, that will focus minds, and it Zia stands in the way then, he'll rightly be told to piss off.
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
Burnham is one of the main ways out of Starmer.
They are being given what they want.
If it is seat in the North West he will walk it.
Are you sure ?
It doesn’t matter. If he doesn’t then he can’t carry the country either. If he does, then he might. It’s the perfect test for a wannabe leader and PM.
"I'm still not sure it answers the question of why immigrants should be less able to access the opportunities that exist in the UK than people born here."
Because what your questions in your post utterly ignore are that a nation is a home and that people in that home are entitled to decide who joins their family. You talk about dehumanising immigrants but your post dehumanises those already living here by denying them any agency at all in who is allowed to join them - and in what numbers. You assume that if a migrant wants to come here (and your post confuses migrants and asylum seekers) that is the only factor: he or she wants, he or she has some gumption so he or she gets.
But what about people born and living here? Do they not get a say?
I am not a Reform supporter so cannot speak for them.
But people in a country should have agency over who is permitted to join them because the country is their home and homes are not open to anyone, regardless of who they are or what they bring, to anyone who demands entry.
That sense of home, of "this is us, this is who we are", of a social contract, of burden sharing, of mutual obligations, of trust, of control are essential to any well-functioning society, any group - frankly - including a school - which you should understand - and certainly a nation. Mass immigration with little control and with a sense of contempt for those feeling that their home has been changed without their consent and in ways they don't like breaks that down and fractures society. That is I think at the root of why people who feel this turn to Reform in the absence of other more established parties paying any attention to their concerns.
@AnthonyT thanks for the reply. The content of your post makes me think you are misunderstanding my position, but reading my own post I can see why - I was trying to write about both asylum seekers and economic migrants without sufficiently distinguishing the two.
I agree that home, culture and the social contract is important. As I hope I made clear, I have huge sympathy for those who are bearing the brunt of economic migration (a previous girlfriend's grandparents lived on a street in Peterborough that experienced enormous culture change in a short space of time that massively disrupted their sense of place and of home, about which they were powerless. Watching it happen was quite a formative experience for me).
I am reluctantly supportive of the main thrust of my original post - that, despite being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we seem not to be able to afford to provide adequately for our own citizens, nor for migrants. I lament this but I don't deny it. I do not assume that if a migrant wants to come here they should be allowed to. I can entirely understand why in practice we need to restrict inward migration. I agree the scale of migration in the last few years was a mistake, especially after a decade or more of austerity.
I am interested in the justification for refusing entry to a migrant, or an asylum seeker, though. (I realise even now I may be being very unclear, apologies).
As an aside I don't believe the nation or country has the role you are claiming for it. Communities and smaller groups do. We drape ourselves in flags to try to pretend the country (or at least the state) is home, but for most people home is the community around them. I think Reform are selling a nonsense to communities in Peterborough and elsewhere that by making the nation or the state 'home', their lives will improve. There remains huge inequality within our country and I do not believe Reform will address this, in fact I think the opposite will happen.
But the central thrust of my disagreement with you is that someone who happens to have been born in UK or has citizenship somehow 'deserves' to have the power to create the sort of home you write of, whereas someone born in a poorer part of the world does not. I am not arguing that the former doesn't deserve this power. I think they do. I just think migrants of whatever form also do.
Your rejection of the role nation state isn't borne out by history. If you look at the peoples that have been enslaved, from the Balkans to the West African tribes, it happened when people had no nation state to protect them.
@maxh I would argue that the nation/state does have that role (of being home to the people who have historic or other roots in that place). The nation/state makes no bones about calling upon those people to defend its territory when threatened.
And I would happily defend the UK's territory (at least if I were young enough to be asked). I'd want to see my kids do the same if they were old enough.
But my point is that it is people's feelings of the breakdown of the social contract or the lack of a 'home' are in my view much more local: is their street safe? Do they bump into people on it with whom they have a shared cultural reference? Are those people speaking English? Is their estate/suburb etc safe? Is their local familiar? Do the buses work? Can they get a GP appointment? Is their local school decent?
My conjecture is that this is where home is made. The nation or state is more impersonal, notwithstanding the World Cup and similar.
Fair enough, but you must accept that you are unusual
I reckon 90% of Brits born here very much regard it as home, and I hope a large chunk of Brits born overseas feel the same. It is our island, we shall defend it. White cliffs, green fields, Scottish glens, Cornish coves. London to Belfast, Edinburgh to Harlech, Dorset to Stornoway. What's more, anyone of "Anglo-Celtic ancestry" (most of the country?) is very likely to have genetic roots in the British Isles going back thousands of years
I moan about Britain endlessly, especially the weather and the politics, but it is home. It is where my father's bones are buried. It is where his father's bones are buried. And his father before him. And his father before him. Back before the first moment of recorded time
I think it's a mix -- I think of the UK as home, but my perception of what "home* is and how my home is doing is strongly shaped by what I see and experience every day in the local area around me. As it gets further away and for places I haven't been it gets a bit more abstract --:if I go to Cornwall or Manchester or York I feel familiarity and at home there: these places are not so distant and not greatly different from where I live in the south of England . Edinburgh, also, but so far away it gets a bit more tenuous. And Belfast I have no emotional connection with at all -- considering whether it should stay in the UK or become part of Ireland I have no instinctive or emotional take: it's as abstract to me as whether Quebec should secede from Canada or not.
Go to Belfast. It is definitely part of Britain, and yet ALSO part of Ireland, at the same time
In some ways it is the most British place in Britain. It's also brilliant, as is the whole of Northern Ireland. Under-rated and very very beautiful. And great oysters, shared with Ireland, on Carlingford Lough
But not ‘our island’ which we will defend, but part of another island.
Our IslandS. We are an archipelago, and so are we
TBF I do sense a foreign-ness in Ireland (South). It is not quite Britain in the sane way as Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London - which are all very different again yet share something intangibly important. This despite all the best architecture in Ireland being built by the Brits, for which they seem remarkably ungrateful, just because they are picky eaters re potatoes
There's a great gulf between your judgement and that of Clive Lewis. Obviously you're a bit of a fool, but Lewis is in a Mordor like abyss intellectually.
Mordor is not known for its abysses. Perhaps you mean Khazad-dûm?
Just because Tolkien couldn't sum up the doom laden mention, it doesn't mean that the abysses aren't there. Khazad-dûm is surely a holiday resort.
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
Yup, I read that post and wondered whether he'd had a few too many glasses of wine with his lunch. I think it was you, BJO, me and isam who were on the Starmer is a pile of shit train very early on. For me to the extent that even after I promised myself and my wife I wouldn't go out campaigning after Truss I still found myself delivering leaflets and talking to people all across North London in a futile attempt to keep him away from office.
One of the main reasons I didn't want him was because my uncle was QC at the time when Starmer was DPP and he's quite a mild mannered person and pretty "right on" and he was absolutely scathing about Starmer when I asked after he became Labour leader. I won't go into any details because I'm sure it would be easy to work out his identity but suffice it to say he said Starmer is responsible for the rot at the top of the CPS and it's subsequent failings.
After that I did my own research and I broke my promise, rejoined the party, made a donation and went out and campaigned.
I think I've been proven right and what my uncle described about Starmer's reign as DPP has repeated itself on the national level just as he predicted.
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
Good god man. If you're reaching for the failings of our local comedy shop to bolster your ego then you're flailing indeed!
Be fair, we all know @Leon is an utter tit but it deserves mentioning from time to time.
Really. What would you all do without me
Whenever I go away for a few hours or a few weeks, I get a little jolt of narcissistic anxiety, "have they all forgotten about me"? And yet, when I come back, without fail: here you all are, talking about me, endlessly. It's very reassuring, so I just want to say Thanks
Evening all, been a rough old weekend here. Youngest came home from school camp vomiting, queue a weekend of fever, trips to A&E, nursing and general low level panic. Type 1 is a bitch normally but when your child can’t keep down water…
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
NARRATOR: England and Wales now have the highest rate of recorded rapes in the world
I have two daughters and this worries me a lot. I can't wrap them in cotton wool forever but the UK just seems unsafe for young women.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
Yup, I read that post and wondered whether he'd had a few too many glasses of wine with his lunch. I think it was you, BJO, me and isam who were on the Starmer is a pile of shit train very early on. For me to the extent that even after I promised myself and my wife I wouldn't go out campaigning after Truss I still found myself delivering leaflets and talking to people all across North London in a futile attempt to keep him away from office.
One of the main reasons I didn't want him was because my uncle was QC at the time when Starmer was DPP and he's quite a mild mannered person and pretty "right on" and he was absolutely scathing about Starmer when I asked after he became Labour leader. I won't go into any details because I'm sure it would be easy to work out his identity but suffice it to say he said Starmer is responsible for the rot at the top of the CPS and it's subsequent failings.
After that I did my own research and I broke my promise, rejoined the party, made a donation and went out and campaigned.
I think I've been proven right and what my uncle described about Starmer's reign as DPP has repeated itself on the national level just as he predicted.
For perhaps the last time: it was a self deprecating joke: trying to claim that I was the first person to dislike Starmer while being possibly the only person on this forum to literally vote for him as my MP (@kinabalu and @bondegezou also possibly did this). A clearly ludicrous statement
People like @isam outed Skyr as a wrong 'un decades before me
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
It really would be better if they were drunk because one day they might then be sober. That they might behave like this sober really doesn't bear thinking about.
Evening all, been a rough old weekend here. Youngest came home from school camp vomiting, queue a weekend of fever, trips to A&E, nursing and general low level panic. Type 1 is a bitch normally but when your child can’t keep down water…
Talking of toast, I just made my first ever steak tartare, from scratch (ingredients from Camden Sainsbury's) - with toasted sourdough drizzled with olive oil and sprinkled with Cornish sea salt (served from a special Cornish serpentine salt bowl)
Delish! Who knew. I think the Serpentine was crucial, but anyway. So easy!
Enjoyed with an excellent, very very cold Whitehaven Sauv Blanc (NZ)
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
Yup, I read that post and wondered whether he'd had a few too many glasses of wine with his lunch. I think it was you, BJO, me and isam who were on the Starmer is a pile of shit train very early on. For me to the extent that even after I promised myself and my wife I wouldn't go out campaigning after Truss I still found myself delivering leaflets and talking to people all across North London in a futile attempt to keep him away from office.
One of the main reasons I didn't want him was because my uncle was QC at the time when Starmer was DPP and he's quite a mild mannered person and pretty "right on" and he was absolutely scathing about Starmer when I asked after he became Labour leader. I won't go into any details because I'm sure it would be easy to work out his identity but suffice it to say he said Starmer is responsible for the rot at the top of the CPS and it's subsequent failings.
After that I did my own research and I broke my promise, rejoined the party, made a donation and went out and campaigned.
I think I've been proven right and what my uncle described about Starmer's reign as DPP has repeated itself on the national level just as he predicted.
For perhaps the last time: it was a self deprecating joke: trying to claim that I was the first person to dislike Starmer while being possibly the only person on this forum to literally vote for him as my MP (@kinabalu and @bondegezou also possibly did this). A clearly ludicrous statement
People like @isam outed Skyr as a wrong 'un decades before me
Try being wrong sometimes. It's got your name all over it with an extensive back catlogue.
I want to end Freehold for good! And Trusts in Land! A title owned by trustees for the beneficiaries who are themselves trustees is no way to organise a system of land ownership! And what's the point of having a joint tenancy in Law, held by the trustees when you can have the beneficiaries (who are also the trustees) hold their interest in common? It's absolute bonkers.
A nice, unititular system, with absolute title and enumerated interests that run in land, with praedial and personal rights rarely touching is just better (for law students, at least).
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
NARRATOR: England and Wales now have the highest rate of recorded rapes in the world
I have two daughters and this worries me a lot. I can't wrap them in cotton wool forever but the UK just seems unsafe for young women.
I have two daughters, likewise. One in Oz (but they have similar issues), one in the UK
Despite all the contextualising, the statistics are quite horrifying, and they should be horrifying, and they are not imaginary. See @DavidL's eloquent commentary below
We are importing tens of thousands of young men every year (from rather misogynistic societies, in the main). They can't get girlfriends coz they can't get jobs, they're not gonna do great on Tinder. What happens then? With their hormones surging? It is not their fault, it is a a collision of basic human nature with a stupid dangerous Lib-Left allowance of insane migration that must END ASAFP
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
Yup, I read that post and wondered whether he'd had a few too many glasses of wine with his lunch. I think it was you, BJO, me and isam who were on the Starmer is a pile of shit train very early on. For me to the extent that even after I promised myself and my wife I wouldn't go out campaigning after Truss I still found myself delivering leaflets and talking to people all across North London in a futile attempt to keep him away from office.
One of the main reasons I didn't want him was because my uncle was QC at the time when Starmer was DPP and he's quite a mild mannered person and pretty "right on" and he was absolutely scathing about Starmer when I asked after he became Labour leader. I won't go into any details because I'm sure it would be easy to work out his identity but suffice it to say he said Starmer is responsible for the rot at the top of the CPS and it's subsequent failings.
After that I did my own research and I broke my promise, rejoined the party, made a donation and went out and campaigned.
I think I've been proven right and what my uncle described about Starmer's reign as DPP has repeated itself on the national level just as he predicted.
For perhaps the last time: it was a self deprecating joke: trying to claim that I was the first person to dislike Starmer while being possibly the only person on this forum to literally vote for him as my MP (@kinabalu and @bondegezou also possibly did this). A clearly ludicrous statement
People like @isam outed Skyr as a wrong 'un decades before me
My eldest (15) does a masterful impression of SKS. His best is when he’s ribbing on the “my father was a toolmaker” line. “He certainly made a right spanner of me”.
Sensible Tories need to start preparing for a coalition
These local election results should end Conservative delusions of a party revival
This bizarre narrative persists in Tory world: “Kemi Badenoch is leading a revival of the party”. This inexplicably developed when the party’s national opinion poll ratings remained sub-20 points. It persists even after these elections, where they lost more than 500 council seats in England, saw their Welsh Senedd seats drop by 22 to 7, and their Scottish Parliament seats drop by 19 to 12.
Tories push this message after losing control of councils in their heartlands of Essex and Suffolk, amongst half a dozen council losses. They push it even as they failed to re-take Wandsworth. All on the basis of what? The fact they regained control of their flagship Westminster council and held middle-class councils in the prosperous South? This is a strange measure of success.
Reform, meanwhile, secured nearly 1,500 council seats across England – many of them at the direct expense of the Conservative Party. Reform’s performance wasn’t that of an irritating challenger party like Ukip used to be, but of a party heading for Downing Street.
I would frankly rather that they went into coalition with Labour, as the CDU/CSU did with the SPD in preference to going into any kind of deal with the AfD. The prospects of any party having a majority or control after the next Westminster election are indeed slight but that is no reason to invite the likes of Farage and Jenrick into the house.
1. Adorable that you think the Tories will be the ones doing the inviting. 2. I see this as simple posturing Waitrose snobbery.
1. Fair point. 2. There is no Waitrose in Dundee. I haven't been in a Waitrose for over a decade.
It has a V & A art gallery ( but then so does Stratford Newham as of last month!).
I went in it once (the V&A in Dundee) a few years ago and was surprised by how little..stuff...there was in it. Maybe it's better now though.
Nope. The contents of what is a very fine building have been consistently disappointing.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
NARRATOR: England and Wales now have the highest rate of recorded rapes in the world
I have two daughters and this worries me a lot. I can't wrap them in cotton wool forever but the UK just seems unsafe for young women.
I see you are going for the we've imported racists viewpoint rather than the fact we've finally got police in a position where women are willing to report attacks rather than suffer silently as they used to.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Is the typo in Rayner's press release or Rigby's summary?
Oh Rayner's press release, dear me! Having said that as a former flat owner, the whole end leasehold campaign just shows a lack of understanding about how blocks of flats work.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Apparently it’s only for foreign polygamous marriages before 1987. The Immigration Act 1988 closed that particular loophole.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
NARRATOR: England and Wales now have the highest rate of recorded rapes in the world
As an example "rape" is defined in s1 of the Sexual Offences (S) Act as oral vaginal and anal penetration. I suspect relatively few countries would classify oral penetration as rape.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
"We must double down on renters' reform and show leaseholders our action on tackling ground rents and charges was just a first step to ending freehold for good."
Presumably she means ending leaseholders having a separate freeholder.
Remember she won't actually have any understanding of the detail or indeed the law.
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
Burnham is one of the main ways out of Starmer.
They are being given what they want.
If it is seat in the North West he will walk it.
Not quite. If a governing party with 400+ MPs can't field a decent shortlist of possible prime ministers out of their number they have a problem that can't be solved by parachuting in a very naughty boy messiah
“single / lone parent - state pension age or over: 244.40 256.00
couple - state pension age or over: 366.00 383.35
single / lone parent - reached state pension age on or after 1 April 2021 couple - both reached state pension age on or after 1 April 2021: 227.10 346.60 238.00
for the claimant and the other party to the marriage where one or more members of the marriage are state pension age or over for each additional spouse who is a member of the same household as the claimant and one or more of the members are state pension age or over: 366.00 383.35
If the claimant is a member of a POLYGAMOUS marriage and all of the members of the marriage have attained pensionable age on or after 1 April 2021
For the claimant and the other party to the marriage
For each additional spouse who is a member of the same household as the claimant: 346.60 363.25 119.50 125.25”
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Apparently it’s only for foreign polygamous marriages before 1987. The Immigration Act 1988 closed that particular loophole.
It's still ridiculous. End it for every marriage and bar immigration for any person who is unable to live by the law of the land.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
It is I believe for people who married legally abroad to more than one person. In common with many (most?) countries, the UK recognises marriages made abroad.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
This country is a joke. Last year I paid well in excess of six figures in tax, I don't engage in any kind of tax avoidance or work through some IR35 setup even though I probably could. What am I bothering to do this for?
Is the typo in Rayner's press release or Rigby's summary?
Oh Rayner's press release, dear me! Having said that as a former flat owner, the whole end leasehold campaign just shows a lack of understanding about how blocks of flats work.
That seems like a silly statement to make considering almost no other county in the world has leasehold and yet flats exist everywhere.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Apparently it’s only for foreign polygamous marriages before 1987. The Immigration Act 1988 closed that particular loophole.
It's still ridiculous. End it for every marriage and bar immigration for any person who is unable to live by the law of the land.
Several countries which don't allow gay marriage will recognise foreign gay marriages if they were legal when they occurred. For example Israel. Also all EU countries which don't allow it must, per the ECJ.
Of course, in this example the number of immigrants in question is no greater!
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
Burnham is one of the main ways out of Starmer.
They are being given what they want.
If it is seat in the North West he will walk it.
Not quite. If a governing party with 400+ MPs can't field a decent shortlist of possible prime ministers out of their number they have a problem that can't be solved by parachuting in a very naughty boy messiah
The talent pool is as shallow as their majority, it seems. You are spot on. A thumping majority and they have to go fishing for the next leader elsewhere. Bloody shameful.
Evening all, been a rough old weekend here. Youngest came home from school camp vomiting, queue a weekend of fever, trips to A&E, nursing and general low level panic. Type 1 is a bitch normally but when your child can’t keep down water…
On the mend now thankfully.
What did I miss?
We've kept a couple of spare packs of Dioralyte in the house ever since the first time that happened.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
This country is a joke. Last year I paid well in excess of six figures in tax, I don't engage in any kind of tax avoidance or work through some IR35 setup even though I probably could. What am I bothering to do this for?
The pension/UC stuff I linked to earlier, as well, is much more disheartening. Because we are now giving the state pension (minus £3) to anyone who shows up who is of pensionable age. So you pay into the Exchequer for 35 years and the benefit you get is basically zero over someone who arrived last Thursday
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
Burnham is one of the main ways out of Starmer.
They are being given what they want.
If it is seat in the North West he will walk it.
Not quite. If a governing party with 400+ MPs can't field a decent shortlist of possible prime ministers out of their number they have a problem that can't be solved by parachuting in a very naughty boy messiah
Slightly unfair; about 200 of those MPs arrived less than 2 years ago, and I think it's OK to rule them out for now. Even the 2019 intake are still on the undercooked side.
But when you look at those jostling to take over from Starmer, it's obvious how he got the job.
Evening all, been a rough old weekend here. Youngest came home from school camp vomiting, queue a weekend of fever, trips to A&E, nursing and general low level panic. Type 1 is a bitch normally but when your child can’t keep down water…
On the mend now thankfully.
What did I miss?
We've kept a couple of spare packs of Dioralyte in the house ever since the first time that happened.
I’m a good Boy Scout. I keep a well stocked first aid kit. But T1D laughs at my preparation. We’ve gone through many ketone test strips.
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
This country is a joke. Last year I paid well in excess of six figures in tax, I don't engage in any kind of tax avoidance or work through some IR35 setup even though I probably could. What am I bothering to do this for?
The pension/UC stuff I linked to earlier, as well, is much more disheartening. Because we are now giving the state pension (minus £3) to anyone who shows up who is of pensionable age. So you pay into the Exchequer for 35 years and the benefit you get is basically zero over someone who arrived last Thursday
I fundamentally don't understand why though. What earthly reason is there to offer welfare to non-citizens? What does the nation gain by doing this?
Sensible Tories need to start preparing for a coalition
These local election results should end Conservative delusions of a party revival
This bizarre narrative persists in Tory world: “Kemi Badenoch is leading a revival of the party”. This inexplicably developed when the party’s national opinion poll ratings remained sub-20 points. It persists even after these elections, where they lost more than 500 council seats in England, saw their Welsh Senedd seats drop by 22 to 7, and their Scottish Parliament seats drop by 19 to 12.
Tories push this message after losing control of councils in their heartlands of Essex and Suffolk, amongst half a dozen council losses. They push it even as they failed to re-take Wandsworth. All on the basis of what? The fact they regained control of their flagship Westminster council and held middle-class councils in the prosperous South? This is a strange measure of success.
Reform, meanwhile, secured nearly 1,500 council seats across England – many of them at the direct expense of the Conservative Party. Reform’s performance wasn’t that of an irritating challenger party like Ukip used to be, but of a party heading for Downing Street.
I would frankly rather that they went into coalition with Labour, as the CDU/CSU did with the SPD in preference to going into any kind of deal with the AfD. The prospects of any party having a majority or control after the next Westminster election are indeed slight but that is no reason to invite the likes of Farage and Jenrick into the house.
1. Adorable that you think the Tories will be the ones doing the inviting. 2. I see this as simple posturing Waitrose snobbery.
1. Fair point. 2. There is no Waitrose in Dundee. I haven't been in a Waitrose for over a decade.
It has a V & A art gallery ( but then so does Stratford Newham as of last month!).
I went in it once (the V&A in Dundee) a few years ago and was surprised by how little..stuff...there was in it. Maybe it's better now though.
Nope. The contents of what is a very fine building have been consistently disappointing.
I thought the whole point of the V&A from the 80s onwards was to have a good cafe with a museum (of some form) attached.
And from memory the Cafe was the highlight of our visit to the V&A Dundee..
There's a great gulf between your judgement and that of Clive Lewis. Obviously you're a bit of a fool, but Lewis is in a Mordor like abyss intellectually.
Mordor is not known for its abysses. Perhaps you mean Khazad-dûm?
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
PB has spoken.
You do know I LOVE being the centre of attention? You know that, right?
Sensible Tories need to start preparing for a coalition
These local election results should end Conservative delusions of a party revival
This bizarre narrative persists in Tory world: “Kemi Badenoch is leading a revival of the party”. This inexplicably developed when the party’s national opinion poll ratings remained sub-20 points. It persists even after these elections, where they lost more than 500 council seats in England, saw their Welsh Senedd seats drop by 22 to 7, and their Scottish Parliament seats drop by 19 to 12.
Tories push this message after losing control of councils in their heartlands of Essex and Suffolk, amongst half a dozen council losses. They push it even as they failed to re-take Wandsworth. All on the basis of what? The fact they regained control of their flagship Westminster council and held middle-class councils in the prosperous South? This is a strange measure of success.
Reform, meanwhile, secured nearly 1,500 council seats across England – many of them at the direct expense of the Conservative Party. Reform’s performance wasn’t that of an irritating challenger party like Ukip used to be, but of a party heading for Downing Street.
I would frankly rather that they went into coalition with Labour, as the CDU/CSU did with the SPD in preference to going into any kind of deal with the AfD. The prospects of any party having a majority or control after the next Westminster election are indeed slight but that is no reason to invite the likes of Farage and Jenrick into the house.
1. Adorable that you think the Tories will be the ones doing the inviting. 2. I see this as simple posturing Waitrose snobbery.
1. Fair point. 2. There is no Waitrose in Dundee. I haven't been in a Waitrose for over a decade.
It has a V & A art gallery ( but then so does Stratford Newham as of last month!).
I went in it once (the V&A in Dundee) a few years ago and was surprised by how little..stuff...there was in it. Maybe it's better now though.
Nope. The contents of what is a very fine building have been consistently disappointing.
I thought the whole point of the V&A from the 80s onwards was to have a good cafe with a museum (of some form) attached.
And from memory the Cafe was the highlight of our visit to the V&A Dundee..
The V&A Dundee is great. I have been multiple times
Has Rayner and others thought just how the electorate will act if Burnham stands in any seat on the basis he is walking into Downing street as the de facto PM ?
Apart from finding a winning seat, why would the constituents accept being used ?
The whole idea is surreal and will have serious problems for labour and the country, not least with the bond markets
If Burnham can't win a by election in a favourable seat, he doesn't deserve to be a part of any future Labour leadership contest.
I think one of the things not being considered is the level of tactical voting against Burnham. I'd never normally vote Green, not even tactically, but in this particular case I'd cheerfully lend them my vote for the pleasure of getting egg on the face of Burnham and his massive ego.
His only possible hope is a very safe Labour seat where it's not clear if Reform or Green are best placed to stop him.
To staunch the bleeding heart of @nico67 and others on here, I did some actual research on Indefinite Leave to Remain
Anyone who gets ILR is told lots of things, including this crucial paragraph:
"ILR is not the same as citizenship. While ILR grants permanent residence rights, it can be lost through extended absences from the UK (over 2 years) or serious criminal convictions. Only British citizenship provides truly permanent status that cannot be revoked under normal circumstances."
So they are made aware that it is contingent. That it CAN be revoked. There. Now that's settled, we can all calm down
Comes up depressingly often in my cases. Being blunt about it you have young men struggling with the language, who have no roots or connections here, who see young girls going around drunk not wearing very much and they think anything they do will be welcome. None of this excuses their behaviour which arises from the urgent physical need, a cultural incomprehension and being a long way from home. I struggle to blame these young men, even as I get them convicted. I have no hesitation blaming those who allowed them to be here.
Your last sentence needs a bit of expansion. Who allowed them to be here in the sense of how did they get here in the first place? Who allowed them to remain and what should they have done instead given the law of the right of refugees etc? Where should they be at this moment if not in the UK? How would anyone get them to that as yet unnamed place?
We give them rights to remain because they come from hell holes. And they do. But the rights are contingent on our obligation to give them shelter. Why? Why should our women and girls face these risks and suffer these consequences? Who asked them? The risks are taken not by those making the decisions, they are taken by those living very different lives. We do not pay nearly enough attention to the victims. It is unacceptable.
I'm sure some of the people taking the decisions are women. I'm sure some of them are parents of girls. Every policy carries risks that must be balanced against benefits. If we only focused on risks we would never build a road or do anything. Allowing in refugees creates benefits for the refugees themselves who would otherwise face rape or death themselves. It creates benefits for the world as it helps to deal with a global problem. It creates benefits for society when those refugees become useful and productive and valued members of our community. But of course some of them will turn out to do bad things, because that is true of any group of people. This should all be obvious.
NARRATOR: England and Wales now have the highest rate of recorded rapes in the world
I have two daughters and this worries me a lot. I can't wrap them in cotton wool forever but the UK just seems unsafe for young women.
I see you are going for the we've imported racists viewpoint rather than the fact we've finally got police in a position where women are willing to report attacks rather than suffer silently as they used to.
Also, unlike a large number of allegedly civilised countries, the UK doesn't have a statute of limitations for serious criminal offences. So victims can report historic offences.
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
PB has spoken.
You do know I LOVE being the centre of attention? You know that, right?
Just checkin'!
Don't worry, I'll change it back eventually.
Or I might change it to Leon_Thought_Liz_Truss_Would_Be_An-Awesome_PM
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
This country is a joke. Last year I paid well in excess of six figures in tax, I don't engage in any kind of tax avoidance or work through some IR35 setup even though I probably could. What am I bothering to do this for?
The pension/UC stuff I linked to earlier, as well, is much more disheartening. Because we are now giving the state pension (minus £3) to anyone who shows up who is of pensionable age. So you pay into the Exchequer for 35 years and the benefit you get is basically zero over someone who arrived last Thursday
I fundamentally don't understand why though. What earthly reason is there to offer welfare to non-citizens? What does the nation gain by doing this?
Because there will have been people from the Ukraine arriving here that are post pension age
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
PB has spoken.
You do know I LOVE being the centre of attention? You know that, right?
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
PB has spoken.
You do know I LOVE being the centre of attention? You know that, right?
Just checkin'!
Just change it to attention-whore
lol.
You know we all talk about you when you’re not here, right?
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
PB has spoken.
You do know I LOVE being the centre of attention? You know that, right?
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
PB has spoken.
You do know I LOVE being the centre of attention? You know that, right?
Just checkin'!
Just change it to attention-whore
lol.
You know we all talk about you when you’re not here, right?
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
He's such a desperate twat.
To be honest has anyone in the Burnham camp even began to think of the optics of this charade to the general public ?
Hold on. Vast numbers of the public say they want rid of Starmer. They hate him. Detest him. Have Leon levels of loathing. Many have told canvassers that the reason they aren't voting Lab for the first time in their lives is Starmer.
Burnham is one of the main ways out of Starmer.
They are being given what they want.
If it is seat in the North West he will walk it.
Not quite. If a governing party with 400+ MPs can't field a decent shortlist of possible prime ministers out of their number they have a problem that can't be solved by parachuting in a very naughty boy messiah
Why would the leader of a devolved authority not be a suitable person to lead a party and be PM?*
MPs are legislators, not trainee executives. And of course Burnham is a former MP and cabinet minister so has experience of national politics
Sensible Tories need to start preparing for a coalition
These local election results should end Conservative delusions of a party revival
This bizarre narrative persists in Tory world: “Kemi Badenoch is leading a revival of the party”. This inexplicably developed when the party’s national opinion poll ratings remained sub-20 points. It persists even after these elections, where they lost more than 500 council seats in England, saw their Welsh Senedd seats drop by 22 to 7, and their Scottish Parliament seats drop by 19 to 12.
Tories push this message after losing control of councils in their heartlands of Essex and Suffolk, amongst half a dozen council losses. They push it even as they failed to re-take Wandsworth. All on the basis of what? The fact they regained control of their flagship Westminster council and held middle-class councils in the prosperous South? This is a strange measure of success.
Reform, meanwhile, secured nearly 1,500 council seats across England – many of them at the direct expense of the Conservative Party. Reform’s performance wasn’t that of an irritating challenger party like Ukip used to be, but of a party heading for Downing Street.
I would frankly rather that they went into coalition with Labour, as the CDU/CSU did with the SPD in preference to going into any kind of deal with the AfD. The prospects of any party having a majority or control after the next Westminster election are indeed slight but that is no reason to invite the likes of Farage and Jenrick into the house.
1. Adorable that you think the Tories will be the ones doing the inviting. 2. I see this as simple posturing Waitrose snobbery.
1. Fair point. 2. There is no Waitrose in Dundee. I haven't been in a Waitrose for over a decade.
It has a V & A art gallery ( but then so does Stratford Newham as of last month!).
I went in it once (the V&A in Dundee) a few years ago and was surprised by how little..stuff...there was in it. Maybe it's better now though.
Nope. The contents of what is a very fine building have been consistently disappointing.
I thought the whole point of the V&A from the 80s onwards was to have a good cafe with a museum (of some form) attached.
And from memory the Cafe was the highlight of our visit to the V&A Dundee..
The V&A Dundee is great. I have been multiple times
I live here and I haven't. Nice cafe. Beautiful building somewhat spoiled by the ugly office blocks built right in front of it. Minimal contents and a lot of larger displays that are, to put it politely, somewhat niche. What did you go to look at?
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Apparently it’s only for foreign polygamous marriages before 1987. The Immigration Act 1988 closed that particular loophole.
It's still ridiculous. End it for every marriage and bar immigration for any person who is unable to live by the law of the land.
Several countries which don't allow gay marriage will recognise foreign gay marriages if they were legal when they occurred. For example Israel. Also all EU countries which don't allow it must, per the ECJ.
Of course, in this example the number of immigrants in question is no greater!
Israel does not even allow interfaith marriages to happen in the country, but you can pop over to Cyprus, marry who you want, and then Israel will recognise the marriage.
Talking of toast, I just made my first ever steak tartare, from scratch (ingredients from Camden Sainsbury's) - with toasted sourdough drizzled with olive oil and sprinkled with Cornish sea salt (served from a special Cornish serpentine salt bowl)
Delish! Who knew. I think the Serpentine was crucial, but anyway. So easy!
Enjoyed with an excellent, very very cold Whitehaven Sauv Blanc (NZ)
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
This country is a joke. Last year I paid well in excess of six figures in tax, I don't engage in any kind of tax avoidance or work through some IR35 setup even though I probably could. What am I bothering to do this for?
The pension/UC stuff I linked to earlier, as well, is much more disheartening. Because we are now giving the state pension (minus £3) to anyone who shows up who is of pensionable age. So you pay into the Exchequer for 35 years and the benefit you get is basically zero over someone who arrived last Thursday
One is a floor to make sure old people still have a basic amount of money to live. If they have some income, it tops them up to this minimum level.
The other is a benefit you get, and you get to keep even if you have other sources of income.
I DEMAND that my name is changed every on the Ides of every month, plus important saints' days, with an honour guard of comments by @kinabalu and @bondegezou remarking on my fame and sagacity, and announcements in the London Illustrated News, the Falmouth Packet, and Pravda
This should be accompanied by large floats rolling down the Ramblas in Barcelona, to the total bewilderment of tourists AND locals, with my new name spelled in synthetic meat on enormous styrofoam maps of the Baltic, as nubile Siamese dancing girls gyrate to Mmmbop by Hanson
Sensible Tories need to start preparing for a coalition
These local election results should end Conservative delusions of a party revival
This bizarre narrative persists in Tory world: “Kemi Badenoch is leading a revival of the party”. This inexplicably developed when the party’s national opinion poll ratings remained sub-20 points. It persists even after these elections, where they lost more than 500 council seats in England, saw their Welsh Senedd seats drop by 22 to 7, and their Scottish Parliament seats drop by 19 to 12.
Tories push this message after losing control of councils in their heartlands of Essex and Suffolk, amongst half a dozen council losses. They push it even as they failed to re-take Wandsworth. All on the basis of what? The fact they regained control of their flagship Westminster council and held middle-class councils in the prosperous South? This is a strange measure of success.
Reform, meanwhile, secured nearly 1,500 council seats across England – many of them at the direct expense of the Conservative Party. Reform’s performance wasn’t that of an irritating challenger party like Ukip used to be, but of a party heading for Downing Street.
I would frankly rather that they went into coalition with Labour, as the CDU/CSU did with the SPD in preference to going into any kind of deal with the AfD. The prospects of any party having a majority or control after the next Westminster election are indeed slight but that is no reason to invite the likes of Farage and Jenrick into the house.
1. Adorable that you think the Tories will be the ones doing the inviting. 2. I see this as simple posturing Waitrose snobbery.
1. Fair point. 2. There is no Waitrose in Dundee. I haven't been in a Waitrose for over a decade.
OTOH there are people in Brighton who haven’t been in an Asda for over a decade.
Excuse me. There are two huge Asdas in Brighton - I was in one of them today. And just one Waitrose, too distant from me. The vegetarian shoe shop is still going strong, though.
I must say, I did laugh on the previous thread when I read that post by @Leon saying he was the first to start hating Starmer and spot his uselessness.
I was saying (repeatedly) that he'd be a disaster before the last General Election, and getting no credit for it, including from Leon.
Who then voted for Labour.
If this posts gets 20 likes then I will change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
PB has spoken.
You do know I LOVE being the centre of attention? You know that, right?
Just checkin'!
Don't worry, I'll change it back eventually.
Or I might change it to Leon_Thought_Liz_Truss_Would_Be_An-Awesome_PM
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
I'm sorry but this can't be real. Bigamy is illegal in the UK last I checked. What are the government playing at, literally writing Reform's manifesto for them.
Its true, it's a tiny number of people. But it is true. I linked to it earlier. We are indeed paying (increased) benefits to polygamous wives "because it is their custom". That, honestly, is the explanation
This country is a joke. Last year I paid well in excess of six figures in tax, I don't engage in any kind of tax avoidance or work through some IR35 setup even though I probably could. What am I bothering to do this for?
The pension/UC stuff I linked to earlier, as well, is much more disheartening. Because we are now giving the state pension (minus £3) to anyone who shows up who is of pensionable age. So you pay into the Exchequer for 35 years and the benefit you get is basically zero over someone who arrived last Thursday
One is a floor to make sure old people still have a basic amount of money to live. If they have some income, it tops them up to this minimum level.
The other is a benefit you get, and you get to keep even if you have other sources of income.
Its not a benefit it is an entitlement earned over 35 years. And the fact that the means tested benefits are basically the same shows you how little the State actually values your contributions, no matter how substantial or deemed they are. For those without other sources of income it is surely the worst deal in history.
Comments
An amazing turn around by Carrick and Fernandes player of the year is well deserved
Burnham is one of the main ways out of Starmer.
They are being given what they want.
If it is seat in the North West he will walk it.
I thought that was obvious when I added "but I also personally voted for him as my MP"
Just winding you up.
Delish! Who knew. I think the Serpentine was crucial, but anyway. So easy!
Enjoyed with an excellent, very very cold Whitehaven Sauv Blanc (NZ)
If the Burnham camp are so stupid as to believe they can lever in their man in this way we can only hope and pray they are shot down in flames in order to save us all from their ineptitude in government.
Come on, PB. We can do this.
TBF I do sense a foreign-ness in Ireland (South). It is not quite Britain in the sane way as Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London - which are all very different again yet share something intangibly important. This despite all the best architecture in Ireland being built by the Brits, for which they seem remarkably ungrateful, just because they are picky eaters re potatoes
https://x.com/helen_whately/status/2053519832323154042?s=61
One of the main reasons I didn't want him was because my uncle was QC at the time when Starmer was DPP and he's quite a mild mannered person and pretty "right on" and he was absolutely scathing about Starmer when I asked after he became Labour leader. I won't go into any details because I'm sure it would be easy to work out his identity but suffice it to say he said Starmer is responsible for the rot at the top of the CPS and it's subsequent failings.
After that I did my own research and I broke my promise, rejoined the party, made a donation and went out and campaigned.
I think I've been proven right and what my uncle described about Starmer's reign as DPP has repeated itself on the national level just as he predicted.
Whenever I go away for a few hours or a few weeks, I get a little jolt of narcissistic anxiety, "have they all forgotten about me"? And yet, when I come back, without fail: here you all are, talking about me, endlessly. It's very reassuring, so I just want to say Thanks
On the mend now thankfully.
What did I miss?
Hard to see how the whole thing doesn’t end in disaster
😂😂😂😂
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
https://x.com/toadmeister/status/2053414797031461094?s=61
😂😂😂😂
‘ Husbands with second, third and even fourth wives living in the UK have had their benefits allowance increased by the Department for Work and Pensions.’
https://x.com/toadmeister/status/2053414797031461094?s=61
People like @isam outed Skyr as a wrong 'un decades before me
It’s in Rayners release
*group hug*
A nice, unititular system, with absolute title and enumerated interests that run in land, with praedial and personal rights rarely touching is just better (for law students, at least).
Despite all the contextualising, the statistics are quite horrifying, and they should be horrifying, and they are not imaginary. See @DavidL's eloquent commentary below
We are importing tens of thousands of young men every year (from rather misogynistic societies, in the main). They can't get girlfriends coz they can't get jobs, they're not gonna do great on Tinder. What happens then? With their hormones surging? It is not their fault, it is a a collision of basic human nature with a stupid dangerous Lib-Left allowance of insane migration that must END ASAFP
I know I’m biased, but he’s got it nailed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/polygamous-potential-polygamous-marriage-set14/polygamous-potential-polygamous-marriages-set14
I couldn't find the latest version.
If a plane crashed on the Ukraine/ROC border where would you bury the survivors?
Having said that as a former flat owner, the whole end leasehold campaign just shows a lack of understanding about how blocks of flats work.
"We must double down on renters' reform and show leaseholders our action on tackling ground rents and charges was just a first step to ending freehold for good."
Presumably she means ending leaseholders having a separate freeholder.
Remember she won't actually have any understanding of the detail or indeed the law.
very naughty boymessiahhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36838760
"Margaret Thatcher concerned over 'second wives'"
“single / lone parent - state pension age or over: 244.40 256.00
couple - state pension age or over: 366.00 383.35
single / lone parent - reached state pension age on or after 1 April 2021 couple - both reached state pension age on or after 1 April 2021: 227.10 346.60 238.00
for the claimant and the other party to the marriage where one or more members of the marriage are state pension age or over for each additional spouse who is a member of the same household as the claimant and one or more of the members are state pension age or over: 366.00 383.35
If the claimant is a member of a POLYGAMOUS marriage and all of the members of the marriage have attained pensionable age on or after 1 April 2021
For the claimant and the other party to the marriage
For each additional spouse who is a member of the same household as the claimant: 346.60 363.25 119.50 125.25”
Of course, in this example the number of immigrants in question is no greater!
You are spot on. A thumping majority and they have to go fishing for the next leader elsewhere. Bloody shameful.
But when you look at those jostling to take over from Starmer, it's obvious how he got the job.
And from memory the Cafe was the highlight of our visit to the V&A Dundee..
Just checkin'!
His only possible hope is a very safe Labour seat where it's not clear if Reform or Green are best placed to stop him.
So victims can report historic offences.
Or I might change it to Leon_Thought_Liz_Truss_Would_Be_An-Awesome_PM
lol.
You know we all talk about you when you’re not here, right?
MPs are legislators, not trainee executives. And of course Burnham is a former MP and cabinet minister so has experience of national politics
*OK, Boris
I feel for Starmer. People can't even spell his name right.
So between 9.30 am and 4.30 pm I will be without my mobile except for 45 min lunch break.
My main focus tomorrow is not to commit perjury or suborn it.
Why do I get the feeling it is all going to kick off at Westminster tomorrow.
The other is a benefit you get, and you get to keep even if you have other sources of income.
This should be accompanied by large floats rolling down the Ramblas in Barcelona, to the total bewilderment of tourists AND locals, with my new name spelled in synthetic meat on enormous styrofoam maps of the Baltic, as nubile Siamese dancing girls gyrate to Mmmbop by Hanson
Very profitably too, sales gave him a gold rush.
It doesn't fill me with confidence.
This is the man that said "on your knees, bitch" (Lewis) so maybe he's not the best person to ask.
https://x.com/mistressdivy/status/2053180554925723767