This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
In Scotland, the quality of local councillors increased immeasurably when STV replaced FPTP and the coterie of, mostly Labour, worthies who had been in office for years with no discernible talent, were finally replaced.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
In Scotland, the quality of local councillors increased immeasurably when STV replaced FPTP and the coterie of, mostly Labour, worthies who had been in office for years with no discernible talent, were finally replaced.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
How do you make decade (plus) long decisions upfront in a world where PMs last two years at most and the governing parties start with a third of the vote max?
JFDI, I guess. And persuade people that you're right.
It more or less worked for Thatcher.
Note that little of that list is particularly left/right coded. 2-5 is all stuff which could appear in the manifesto of a number of parties. It's pragmatist rather than ideological.
3 and 4 are a nice combination, as one represents an increase in Westminster powers; the other a reduction.
Using Heathrow or HS2 as examples, govts have taken the just JFDI approach but then future govts change direction.
We are at a real and significant disadvantage to both less democratic countries and democracies that are more stable on long term investment.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I’m increasingly of the view that Central Government should wipe its hands of housebuilding. Give local authorities the power to force through large resi developments and then leave it up to them. If anyone complains about lack of development, point them in the direction of the local authority.
I think the opposite. Local authorities are the blockers on housing often. We need national govt to ram it through. No one ever seems to think of the people that need houses.
The people who need houses have votes too. Relying on central government to “ram it through” just takes away accountability. It’s like VAR - referees don’t need to make difficult decisions anymore because VAR will fix it (or take the blame).
The problem is… they don’t, at least in relative to the vast majority of the electorate. Housing costs are on average the lowest since the 80s, and most people’s wealth is tied up in their house. It’s a small minority of people where this is a pressing issue, for everyone else it’s the exact opposite.
There is no incentive at all for councils to build. If you want to change that, do something radical like allocating LA grants based on the number of children in each - then you’d suddenly have them approving decent family sized homes, encouraging downsizing, building neighbourhoods and schools…
Walter Titty and Farage are very lucky that all the focus on Starmer meaning their council tax dodging and definitely.not iffy gift scandals arent getting any air time.
Farage's is now under investigation, so it will be news again when the report(s) lands.
Polanski says he's going to pay his council tax. Is there any possibility there of punitive action? It seems unlikely his council would bother. And if not, then maybe he's nipped the story in the bud. Still, he can't go after Rayner in the leader's debate before the next general election on her not paying tax.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Walter Titty and Farage are very lucky that all the focus on Starmer meaning their council tax dodging and definitely.not iffy gift scandals arent getting any air time.
Farage's is now under investigation, so it will be news again when the report(s) lands.
Polanski says he's going to pay his council tax. Is there any possibility there of punitive action? It seems unlikely his council would bother. And if not, then maybe he's nipped the story in the bud. Still, he can't go after Rayner in the leader's debate before the next general election on her not paying tax.
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield NEW: I'm told Andy Burnham does not plan to say anything publicly about his Labour leadership plans "unless anything kicks off".
"He ain't doing the kicking off," says one supporter.
The MP adds: "Can't believe Wes is bottling it. If he doesn't go this time, he's done as a political force."
This entire process is being done as a political farce.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I’m increasingly of the view that Central Government should wipe its hands of housebuilding. Give local authorities the power to force through large resi developments and then leave it up to them. If anyone complains about lack of development, point them in the direction of the local authority.
I think the opposite. Local authorities are the blockers on housing often. We need national govt to ram it through. No one ever seems to think of the people that need houses.
The people who need houses have votes too. Relying on central government to “ram it through” just takes away accountability. It’s like VAR - referees don’t need to make difficult decisions anymore because VAR will fix it (or take the blame).
The problem is… they don’t, at least in relative to the vast majority of the electorate. Housing costs are on average the lowest since the 80s, and most people’s wealth is tied up in their house. It’s a small minority of people where this is a pressing issue, for everyone else it’s the exact opposite.
There is no incentive at all for councils to build. If you want to change that, do something radical like allocating LA grants based on the number of children in each - then you’d suddenly have them approving decent family sized homes, encouraging downsizing, building neighbourhoods and schools…
Councils now have to produce Local Plans allocating the number of new homes in their district and where. We also need to get the birthrate up first
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
In Scotland, the quality of local councillors increased immeasurably when STV replaced FPTP and the coterie of, mostly Labour, worthies who had been in office for years with no discernible talent, were finally replaced.
You must be blessed! Around me the quality is worse than 20 years ago, I dont think enough bright people want to do it anymore. Quite a few of the old brigade took the golden handshake back in 2007.
Really was jobs for the boys back in the 90s, when there were both regional and local/district councillors
Starmera cabinet meeting tactics rather sum him up. He is probably thinking i out manoueved his opponents, but at best he just didnt have to face their criticism at worst he will have pissed people off further and maybe caused them to finally act.
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield NEW: I'm told Andy Burnham does not plan to say anything publicly about his Labour leadership plans "unless anything kicks off".
"He ain't doing the kicking off," says one supporter.
The MP adds: "Can't believe Wes is bottling it. If he doesn't go this time, he's done as a political force."
He "doesn't plan to say anything about his Labour leadership plans" because he can't be Labour leader. There is no vacancy and he is not an MP. He hasn't said in which seat he intends to run and - fundamentally - he then has to win the seat in a by-election. FFS.
Looks to me that Burnham’s only hope is a Granita pact with Starmer. Maybe the promise of chancellor when he finds a seat and an agreed changing of the guard at the end of 2027.
If Streeting wants it, I think he has to make a bombshell resignation speech and a direct challenge, drawing a line between him and the disaster of the last ~2 years. And getting in before Burnham is out of bed. Risk is that the members then go with Rayner, keeping Starmer, or Mr Bacon Sandwich. But he should risk it for a biscuit or his chance is gone forever.
What fun. The beauty of a protracted leadership fandango is it means a nice long period of the parliament where none of them get the chance to lay waste to the country with their “policies”.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
In Scotland, the quality of local councillors increased immeasurably when STV replaced FPTP and the coterie of, mostly Labour, worthies who had been in office for years with no discernible talent, were finally replaced.
As a counter to that my local Labour councillor is a really friendly and helpful guy who has gone out of his way to try and help with some errors the local council have been making.
I saw Keir speak in Newcastle when he was running for Labour leader. He was vacuous even then. Spoke a lot of words without saying anything. His whole pitch was competent electability. He was electable but he’s not a good Prime Minister and he certainly isn’t re-electable.
Really interesting letter from Jess. I'm a big fan of hers and her resignation letter fills in quite a few gaps. Though she's obviously thought about it and her criticisms are well meant you have to think that with all the things a PM has to take on board there's a certain arrogance complaining that Keir didn't devote the attention to her she thought she merited. Maybe she just isn't used to really high office and can't see a big enough picture
Jess Phillips going confirms this a coup by Streeting backers to try and oust the PM, she is from the Labour right
Walter Titty and Farage are very lucky that all the focus on Starmer meaning their council tax dodging and definitely.not iffy gift scandals arent getting any air time.
Farage's is now under investigation, so it will be news again when the report(s) lands.
Polanski says he's going to pay his council tax. Is there any possibility there of punitive action? It seems unlikely his council would bother. And if not, then maybe he's nipped the story in the bud. Still, he can't go after Rayner in the leader's debate before the next general election on her not paying tax.
Which address did he register to vote from ?
BBC ..However the Times reported that the Green Party leader and his partner "appear in recent years to have stayed on a narrowboat at a marina", adding a local launderette said it had often done laundry for Polanski and his partner from 2023 to 2025. Polanski, along with several other individuals also thought to have boats in the marina, used a nearby building as a postal address. The marina is part of Waltham Forest borough council, and the Mail reported that he had been registered to vote there...
Starmera cabinet meeting tactics rather sum him up. He is probably thinking i out manoueved his opponents, but at best he just didnt have to face their criticism at worst he will have pissed people off further and maybe caused them to finally act.
If the reports are true, I think his behaviour at the cabinet meeting will be the final straw.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
Most kids went to their closest school too. It's a function of the tyranny of choice as well as societal changes. Particularly the need to have two parents working full time to afford the mortgage/rent.
More evidence for the Housing Theory of Everything.
Also, both parents have to work because housing is so expensive.
And housing is so expensive because both parents work.
(The reality is that there is a shortage of quality houses that people want to buy. So prices get bid up to the maximum a two income family can afford. The way to address this is to build more houses)
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield NEW: I'm told Andy Burnham does not plan to say anything publicly about his Labour leadership plans "unless anything kicks off".
"He ain't doing the kicking off," says one supporter.
The MP adds: "Can't believe Wes is bottling it. If he doesn't go this time, he's done as a political force."
This entire process is being done as a political farce.
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield NEW: I'm told Andy Burnham does not plan to say anything publicly about his Labour leadership plans "unless anything kicks off".
"He ain't doing the kicking off," says one supporter.
The MP adds: "Can't believe Wes is bottling it. If he doesn't go this time, he's done as a political force."
This entire process is being done as a political farce.
The entire last decade has been done as a political farce. Not just here, they have arranged it globally, although they made it obviously a prank with Trump pretending to be President.
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield NEW: I'm told Andy Burnham does not plan to say anything publicly about his Labour leadership plans "unless anything kicks off".
"He ain't doing the kicking off," says one supporter.
The MP adds: "Can't believe Wes is bottling it. If he doesn't go this time, he's done as a political force."
He "doesn't plan to say anything about his Labour leadership plans" because he can't be Labour leader. There is no vacancy and he is not an MP. He hasn't said in which seat he intends to run and - fundamentally - he then has to win the seat in a by-election. FFS.
Looks to me that Burnham’s only hope is a Granita pact with Starmer. Maybe the promise of chancellor when he finds a seat and an agreed changing of the guard at the end of 2027.
If Streeting wants it, I think he has to make a bombshell resignation speech and a direct challenge, drawing a line between him and the disaster of the last ~2 years. And getting in before Burnham is out of bed. Risk is that the members then go with Rayner, keeping Starmer, or Mr Bacon Sandwich. But he should risk it for a biscuit or his chance is gone forever.
What fun. The beauty of a protracted leadership fandango is it means a nice long period of the parliament where none of them get the chance to lay waste to the country with their “policies”.
On your last point: apart from the bond markets laying waste to public finances while this circus continues.
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
In Aberdeen, it applies to everywhere from Dundee southwards, including Edinburgh.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I’m increasingly of the view that Central Government should wipe its hands of housebuilding. Give local authorities the power to force through large resi developments and then leave it up to them. If anyone complains about lack of development, point them in the direction of the local authority.
...who can point them to the developers. These companies sit on large tracks of land. If they chose to develop them all, their profits would go down. The single biggest blocker to development is, crazily, a lack of will for developers to develop. For very good financial reasons however.
And beyond that, land owners themselves. If you’re sat on surplus land but your cash flow is ok, it is more valuable to you if you sell it next year than this year. And it always will be.
Local authorities can and should be able to compulsory purchase land like they used to do and what they do in many other countries.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
How do you make decade (plus) long decisions upfront in a world where PMs last two years at most and the governing parties start with a third of the vote max?
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
I instinctively disagreed with HYUFD here - its almost impossible for anyone on an average salary to afford a house on one income - but he perhaps has a point that the cause and effect between 'two incomes' and 'high house prices' is not entirely one way - as I think Stillwaters also alludes to. How we though deal with things as they are, rather than as we would want them to be, I don't know! We can't simply tell all couples to give up one income until house prices fall.
Starmera cabinet meeting tactics rather sum him up. He is probably thinking i out manoueved his opponents, but at best he just didnt have to face their criticism at worst he will have pissed people off further and maybe caused them to finally act.
All the handwringers like Liz Kendall justifying the unjustifiable is very unedifying.
The prime minister's authority is draining moment by moment, and it's drained a little more with the resignation of Jess Phillips...
..A deep frustration, you hear it articulated in the letter, that Labour governments don't come along all that often, and they are aware that time is tight. There's also a deep frustration in their view that they haven't got done as much as they would like to. Here is Phillips saying publicly what plenty of her colleagues I've heard say to me privately.
Whatever one thinks of Phillips, that has been a constant refrain on PB too, from all sides of the political spectrum. And it's true.
It's simply absurd for Starmer to say, nearly two years into government, "just give me a bit more time".
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
In Aberdeen, it applies to everywhere from Dundee southwards, including Edinburgh.
Surely it only works for places with three syllables? I'm not at all happy about it being sung about Glasgow. Doesn't scan.
On Thames Water, the government has been overtly propping them up.
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
More to follow... A minister texts: "We’re all going."
If this was serious there would be 20-30 resignations by now led by some in the Cabinet. Instead we have a Minister no one has heard of and Jess Phillips. At the moment the odds must favour Starmer facing his divided opposition down.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
I instinctively disagreed with HYUFD here - its almost impossible for anyone on an average salary to afford a house on one income - but he perhaps has a point that the cause and effect between 'two incomes' and 'high house prices' is not entirely one way - as I think Stillwaters also alludes to. How we though deal with things as they are, rather than as we would want them to be, I don't know! We can't simply tell all couples to give up one income until house prices fall.
The only option is to build so many houses that prices fall to affordable levels if you are on 1 income.
On Thames Water, the government has been overtly propping them up.
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
You have to ask why. & the bigger question - why do suppliers seem to have captured their regulators.
More to follow... A minister texts: "We’re all going."
If this was serious there would be 20-30 resignations by now led by some in the Cabinet. Instead we have a Minister no one has heard of and Jess Phillips. At the moment the odds must favour Starmer facing his divided opposition down.
Always assume the golden rule: how can this be done in the most politically damaging way? That will be the way it will be done.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I don't agree with some of that at all. I spent a lot of my professional career in local Government.
The first and most obvious point is no two councils are the same - every Council with which I was involved had its own culture, values and ways of getting things done.
Yes, there was an issue of Officers wanting to be Members but that was often counterbalanced by Members wanting to be Officers. The Members took the strategic decisions but the implementation was down to Officers who reported back regularly on progress (or lack of it) to Members. Some Members loved to get involved with the minutiae and that wasn't helpful.
The other two issues were Government interference - moving the goalposts and constantly wanting information - and the change in Council governance structure from Committee to Cabinet. In the Cabinet structure, the only Members who mattered were Cabinet holders - all the others were essentially backbenchers who didn't have a lot to do on the Council except attend the odd meeting and be voting fodder.
In the old-fashioned Committee structure, more Members mattered and the overall quality of decision making was higher.
Starmer said if elected he wouldn't reintroduce Freedom of Movement or The Customs Union. A new leader would be under no such obligation. The latest figures show Rejoin on over 60% so by choosing a new leader we could seamlessly Rejoin which would instantly give Labour a significant majority at the next election. The Tories and Reform are against. For that reason I think a new leader is the best outcome
More to follow... A minister texts: "We’re all going."
If this was serious there would be 20-30 resignations by now led by some in the Cabinet. Instead we have a Minister no one has heard of and Jess Phillips. At the moment the odds must favour Starmer facing his divided opposition down.
Still time. The junior people will go first before any cabinet ministers
On Thames Water, the government has been overtly propping them up.
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
You have to ask why. & the bigger question - why do suppliers seem to have captured their regulators.
In this case it’s because the government doesn’t want the expense of fixing the water & sewerage system in the SE on the national debt. They’d rather it cost the country more & that be paid for by taxing the entirety of the SE through our water bills instead.
Given the response of the markets to even small increases in the current government deficit, they might be right about this as well sadly.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
I instinctively disagreed with HYUFD here - its almost impossible for anyone on an average salary to afford a house on one income - but he perhaps has a point that the cause and effect between 'two incomes' and 'high house prices' is not entirely one way - as I think Stillwaters also alludes to. How we though deal with things as they are, rather than as we would want them to be, I don't know! We can't simply tell all couples to give up one income until house prices fall.
Just tax them properly so they are a deeply unattractive asset - with a big allowance for dependent children.
Kevin Schofield @KevinASchofield NEW: I'm told Andy Burnham does not plan to say anything publicly about his Labour leadership plans "unless anything kicks off".
"He ain't doing the kicking off," says one supporter.
The MP adds: "Can't believe Wes is bottling it. If he doesn't go this time, he's done as a political force."
He "doesn't plan to say anything about his Labour leadership plans" because he can't be Labour leader. There is no vacancy and he is not an MP. He hasn't said in which seat he intends to run and - fundamentally - he then has to win the seat in a by-election. FFS.
Looks to me that Burnham’s only hope is a Granita pact with Starmer. Maybe the promise of chancellor when he finds a seat and an agreed changing of the guard at the end of 2027.
If Streeting wants it, I think he has to make a bombshell resignation speech and a direct challenge, drawing a line between him and the disaster of the last ~2 years. And getting in before Burnham is out of bed. Risk is that the members then go with Rayner, keeping Starmer, or Mr Bacon Sandwich. But he should risk it for a biscuit or his chance is gone forever.
What fun. The beauty of a protracted leadership fandango is it means a nice long period of the parliament where none of them get the chance to lay waste to the country with their “policies”.
On your last point: apart from the bond markets laying waste to public finances while this circus continues.
Well that’s happening anyway, because the bond markets fear an even more left wing govt. If it precipitates a snap election then all the better.
Third minister resigns. No, I haven’t heard of him Either
I mean Jess Philips is at least a proper household name.
I suspect that gives cover for some more to pop their head above the parapet.
In many quarters she is mostly known for being the safeguarding minister that laughed off the systematic rape of thousands of young girls on the basis it was like a good night out in Brum.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I’m increasingly of the view that Central Government should wipe its hands of housebuilding. Give local authorities the power to force through large resi developments and then leave it up to them. If anyone complains about lack of development, point them in the direction of the local authority.
...who can point them to the developers. These companies sit on large tracks of land. If they chose to develop them all, their profits would go down. The single biggest blocker to development is, crazily, a lack of will for developers to develop. For very good financial reasons however.
And beyond that, land owners themselves. If you’re sat on surplus land but your cash flow is ok, it is more valuable to you if you sell it next year than this year. And it always will be.
Local authorities can and should be able to compulsory purchase land like they used to do and what they do in many other countries.
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
In Aberdeen, it applies to everywhere from Dundee southwards, including Edinburgh.
Surely it only works for places with three syllables? I'm not at all happy about it being sung about Glasgow. Doesn't scan.
The definitive lyrics.
In your Glasgow slums, In your Glasgow slums, You look in the bucket for something to eat, You find a dead rat and you think it's a treat, In your Glasgow slums."
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
As @Cookie says the difference to when I was growing up in 1970s and early 1980s is astounding.
No one. Literally no one was dropped off by car at our primary school as far as I recall. I don't even recall anyone being walked there by their parents. You walked to school and played in the play ground.
At secondary school there were a handful who were dropped off by car but that's it.
Barty always uses this circular logic to claim the roads are safer. If we returned to the rate of walking and cycling that we had in the 80s, fatalities would rocket (particularly given the number of SUVs on the school run).
I hope my area makes good progress on LTNs, cycle infrastructure, school streets etc in the next few years so I can let any hypothetical children play and walk to school.
Your claim is total bollocks though.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
Third minister resigns. No, I haven’t heard of him Either
I mean Jess Philips is at least a proper household name.
I suspect that gives cover for some more to pop their head above the parapet.
In many quarters she is mostly known for being the safeguarding minister that laughed off the systematic rape of thousands of young girls on the basis it was like a good night out in Brum.
I'm sure you could have dreamt up something more stupid to write?
On Thames Water, the government has been overtly propping them up.
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
You have to ask why. & the bigger question - why do suppliers seem to have captured their regulators.
I think he waits until after the Kings Speech but yes. It’s basically now or never. I wonder what his mentor and patron, Peter is advising him.
’Don’t visit the house of a known paedo and get photographed in your underpants in front of a bunch of suspiciously youthful girls’ would be a good one.
‘Only buy a house you can afford with a lawful mortgage’ would be another.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
As @Cookie says the difference to when I was growing up in 1970s and early 1980s is astounding.
No one. Literally no one was dropped off by car at our primary school as far as I recall. I don't even recall anyone being walked there by their parents. You walked to school and played in the play ground.
At secondary school there were a handful who were dropped off by car but that's it.
Barty always uses this circular logic to claim the roads are safer. If we returned to the rate of walking and cycling that we had in the 80s, fatalities would rocket (particularly given the number of SUVs on the school run).
I hope my area makes good progress on LTNs, cycle infrastructure, school streets etc in the next few years so I can let any hypothetical children play and walk to school.
Your claim is total bollocks though.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
You think more kids walk to school now than in the 80s?
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
I instinctively disagreed with HYUFD here - its almost impossible for anyone on an average salary to afford a house on one income - but he perhaps has a point that the cause and effect between 'two incomes' and 'high house prices' is not entirely one way - as I think Stillwaters also alludes to. How we though deal with things as they are, rather than as we would want them to be, I don't know! We can't simply tell all couples to give up one income until house prices fall.
In the 1990s a very large proportion of women already worked but it was a choice people could make, not a necessity.
House prices have skyrocketed not due to dual incomes but because of supply and demand. Build more houses than demand and it would correct, but people are afraid of a correction.
Second incomes should be able to go on luxuries, holidays, extras, not necessities.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I’m increasingly of the view that Central Government should wipe its hands of housebuilding. Give local authorities the power to force through large resi developments and then leave it up to them. If anyone complains about lack of development, point them in the direction of the local authority.
...who can point them to the developers. These companies sit on large tracks of land. If they chose to develop them all, their profits would go down. The single biggest blocker to development is, crazily, a lack of will for developers to develop. For very good financial reasons however.
And beyond that, land owners themselves. If you’re sat on surplus land but your cash flow is ok, it is more valuable to you if you sell it next year than this year. And it always will be.
Local authorities can and should be able to compulsory purchase land like they used to do and what they do in many other countries.
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
In Aberdeen, it applies to everywhere from Dundee southwards, including Edinburgh.
Surely it only works for places with three syllables? I'm not at all happy about it being sung about Glasgow. Doesn't scan.
The definitive lyrics.
In your Glasgow slums, In your Glasgow slums, You look in the bucket for something to eat, You find a dead rat and you think it's a treat, In your Glasgow slums."
In your Gla as gow slums.
When I was a kid, it was Liverpool/dustbin/dead dog.
I think he waits until after the Kings Speech but yes. It’s basically now or never. I wonder what his mentor and patron, Peter is advising him.
’Don’t visit the house of a known paedo and get photographed in your underpants in front of a bunch of suspiciously youthful girls’ would be a good one.
‘Only buy a house you can afford with a lawful mortgage’ would be another.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
I instinctively disagreed with HYUFD here - its almost impossible for anyone on an average salary to afford a house on one income - but he perhaps has a point that the cause and effect between 'two incomes' and 'high house prices' is not entirely one way - as I think Stillwaters also alludes to. How we though deal with things as they are, rather than as we would want them to be, I don't know! We can't simply tell all couples to give up one income until house prices fall.
In the 1990s a very large proportion of women already worked but it was a choice people could make, not a necessity.
House prices have skyrocketed not due to dual incomes but because of supply and demand. Build more houses than demand and it would correct, but people are afraid of a correction.
Second incomes should be able to go on luxuries, holidays, extras, not necessities.
Dual incomes is part of demand you numpty. “Should” doesn’t cut the mustard.
I had not anticipated Starmer's response to be "Fuck off the lot of you, I'm the Prime Minister". But in retrospect I probably should have. That's how he got the job.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
I instinctively disagreed with HYUFD here - its almost impossible for anyone on an average salary to afford a house on one income - but he perhaps has a point that the cause and effect between 'two incomes' and 'high house prices' is not entirely one way - as I think Stillwaters also alludes to. How we though deal with things as they are, rather than as we would want them to be, I don't know! We can't simply tell all couples to give up one income until house prices fall.
In the 1990s a very large proportion of women already worked but it was a choice people could make, not a necessity.
House prices have skyrocketed not due to dual incomes but because of supply and demand. Build more houses than demand and it would correct, but people are afraid of a correction.
Second incomes should be able to go on luxuries, holidays, extras, not necessities.
Supply and demand attached to the amount a bank is willing to lend
Go back to 1997-2002 and you can witness in house prices the impact of lending going from 3+1 incomes to first 3+3 incomes and then 4+4 incomes
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
As @Cookie says the difference to when I was growing up in 1970s and early 1980s is astounding.
No one. Literally no one was dropped off by car at our primary school as far as I recall. I don't even recall anyone being walked there by their parents. You walked to school and played in the play ground.
At secondary school there were a handful who were dropped off by car but that's it.
Barty always uses this circular logic to claim the roads are safer. If we returned to the rate of walking and cycling that we had in the 80s, fatalities would rocket (particularly given the number of SUVs on the school run).
I hope my area makes good progress on LTNs, cycle infrastructure, school streets etc in the next few years so I can let any hypothetical children play and walk to school.
Your claim is total bollocks though.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
You think more kids walk to school now than in the 80s?
I think more total walking happens than in the 80s.
Not kids to school, for the two reasons already mentioned - people are more risk averse today which has eroded children's independence, and more dual working parent families who can't afford to walk the kids to school as my mum did with me in the 80s.
I had not anticipated Starmer's response to be "Fuck off the lot of you, I'm the Prime Minister". But in retrospect I probably should have. That's how he got the job.
Stubborness is an underrated survival quality.
Probably not enough here though.
Unless one candidate can (a) get 81 signatures and (b) win the membership it might be.
If there is a contest of Streeting v Starmer there’s a good chance Starmer would win.
On Thames Water, the government has been overtly propping them up.
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
You have to ask why. & the bigger question - why do suppliers seem to have captured their regulators.
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
Or rather the opposite, no money or backing for the regulator, supplier is allowed to mark their own homework, "robustly refute" any evidence on standards not being met and threaten system collapse if held to account.
It is why water was nationalised in the first place, Radio 4 "Rinsed" airing now.
Third minister resigns. No, I haven’t heard of him Either
I mean Jess Philips is at least a proper household name.
I suspect that gives cover for some more to pop their head above the parapet.
In many quarters she is mostly known for being the safeguarding minister that laughed off the systematic rape of thousands of young girls on the basis it was like a good night out in Brum.
I'm sure you could have dreamt up something more stupid to write?
Yet it’s not incorrect what moonshine wrote.
She is my sister and my nieces MP. They’ve never heard of her.
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I’m increasingly of the view that Central Government should wipe its hands of housebuilding. Give local authorities the power to force through large resi developments and then leave it up to them. If anyone complains about lack of development, point them in the direction of the local authority.
...who can point them to the developers. These companies sit on large tracks of land. If they chose to develop them all, their profits would go down. The single biggest blocker to development is, crazily, a lack of will for developers to develop. For very good financial reasons however.
And beyond that, land owners themselves. If you’re sat on surplus land but your cash flow is ok, it is more valuable to you if you sell it next year than this year. And it always will be.
Local authorities can and should be able to compulsory purchase land like they used to do and what they do in many other countries.
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
In Aberdeen, it applies to everywhere from Dundee southwards, including Edinburgh.
Surely it only works for places with three syllables? I'm not at all happy about it being sung about Glasgow. Doesn't scan.
The definitive lyrics.
In your Glasgow slums, In your Glasgow slums, You look in the bucket for something to eat, You find a dead rat and you think it's a treat, In your Glasgow slums."
In your Gla as gow slums.
Fascinating local variation
In Hereford we would taunt Cardiff fans with
In your Cardiff slums, In your Cardiff slums, You look in the dustbin for pieces of meat, You find a dead dog and you think it's a treat Dead dog and mustard is something to eat, In your Cardiff slums.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
As @Cookie says the difference to when I was growing up in 1970s and early 1980s is astounding.
No one. Literally no one was dropped off by car at our primary school as far as I recall. I don't even recall anyone being walked there by their parents. You walked to school and played in the play ground.
At secondary school there were a handful who were dropped off by car but that's it.
Barty always uses this circular logic to claim the roads are safer. If we returned to the rate of walking and cycling that we had in the 80s, fatalities would rocket (particularly given the number of SUVs on the school run).
I hope my area makes good progress on LTNs, cycle infrastructure, school streets etc in the next few years so I can let any hypothetical children play and walk to school.
Your claim is total bollocks though.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
As @Cookie says the difference to when I was growing up in 1970s and early 1980s is astounding.
No one. Literally no one was dropped off by car at our primary school as far as I recall. I don't even recall anyone being walked there by their parents. You walked to school and played in the play ground.
At secondary school there were a handful who were dropped off by car but that's it.
Barty always uses this circular logic to claim the roads are safer. If we returned to the rate of walking and cycling that we had in the 80s, fatalities would rocket (particularly given the number of SUVs on the school run).
I hope my area makes good progress on LTNs, cycle infrastructure, school streets etc in the next few years so I can let any hypothetical children play and walk to school.
Your claim is total bollocks though.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
You think more kids walk to school now than in the 80s?
I think more total walking happens than in the 80s.
Not kids to school, for the two reasons already mentioned - people are more risk averse today which has eroded children's independence, and more dual working parent families who can't afford to walk the kids to school as my mum did with me in the 80s.
You think there are more kids out in the streets than in the 80s?
It’s mad you can’t grasp this. The reason fatalities have collapsed is because kids don’t play outside, walk to the shop, walk to school, cycle to football.
I think that’s very sad and why I think we should reclaim our neighbourhoods for them.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
That was my thinking - roads are safer (I would say in London, palpably less busy than when I was a teenager) and the need for both parents to work which wasn't a thing when I was growing up should mean that schools are open for longer and parental accompaniment is not expected.
There is also the school bus and no need for both parents to work full time other than desire for more money but which just pushes house prices up anyway
Love to know where in the country you can buy a house that doesn't require either a hefty gift from the bank of mum and dad OR 2 people earning money to pay the mortgage and usually both.
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
I instinctively disagreed with HYUFD here - its almost impossible for anyone on an average salary to afford a house on one income - but he perhaps has a point that the cause and effect between 'two incomes' and 'high house prices' is not entirely one way - as I think Stillwaters also alludes to. How we though deal with things as they are, rather than as we would want them to be, I don't know! We can't simply tell all couples to give up one income until house prices fall.
In the 1990s a very large proportion of women already worked but it was a choice people could make, not a necessity.
House prices have skyrocketed not due to dual incomes but because of supply and demand. Build more houses than demand and it would correct, but people are afraid of a correction.
Second incomes should be able to go on luxuries, holidays, extras, not necessities.
Dual incomes is part of demand you numpty. “Should” doesn’t cut the mustard.
Part of demand but you have omited the supply element.
If there were sufficient supply, then people could say they are not interested in a tiny overpriced box as they will go elsewhere instead.
Starmer said if elected he wouldn't reintroduce Freedom of Movement or The Customs Union. A new leader would be under no such obligation. The latest figures show Rejoin on over 60% so by choosing a new leader we could seamlessly Rejoin which would instantly give Labour a significant majority at the next election. The Tories and Reform are against. For that reason I think a new leader is the best outcome
No.
A new leader could announce their intention to rejoin. The process of doing so would span more than one election, and absent a confirmatory referendum, I doubt it would last. And the EU knows that too, so it isn’t happening.
I suspect a referendum will slip into the manifesto though. Probably on something like the EEA.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
As @Cookie says the difference to when I was growing up in 1970s and early 1980s is astounding.
No one. Literally no one was dropped off by car at our primary school as far as I recall. I don't even recall anyone being walked there by their parents. You walked to school and played in the play ground.
At secondary school there were a handful who were dropped off by car but that's it.
Barty always uses this circular logic to claim the roads are safer. If we returned to the rate of walking and cycling that we had in the 80s, fatalities would rocket (particularly given the number of SUVs on the school run).
I hope my area makes good progress on LTNs, cycle infrastructure, school streets etc in the next few years so I can let any hypothetical children play and walk to school.
Your claim is total bollocks though.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
You think more kids walk to school now than in the 80s?
I think more total walking happens than in the 80s.
Not kids to school, for the two reasons already mentioned - people are more risk averse today which has eroded children's independence, and more dual working parent families who can't afford to walk the kids to school as my mum did with me in the 80s.
You think there are more kids out on the streets than in the 80s?
Third minister resigns. No, I haven’t heard of him Either
I mean Jess Philips is at least a proper household name.
I suspect that gives cover for some more to pop their head above the parapet.
In many quarters she is mostly known for being the safeguarding minister that laughed off the systematic rape of thousands of young girls on the basis it was like a good night out in Brum.
I'm sure you could have dreamt up something more stupid to write?
“There is violence against women and girls that you are describing, a very similar situation to what happened in Cologne could be described on Broad Street in Birmingham every week, where women are baited and heckled.”
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
In Aberdeen, it applies to everywhere from Dundee southwards, including Edinburgh.
On Thames Water, the government has been overtly propping them up.
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
You have to ask why. & the bigger question - why do suppliers seem to have captured their regulators.
On Thames Water, the government has been overtly propping them up.
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
I advocate letting the water companies go bust and picking up the pieces afterwards, but it's not without cost. One of the points of water privatisation - besides raising a wodge of cash for the Treasury and creating new source of private profit - was to take the necessary borrowing for investment in water infrastructure off the government's books (and also put public anger at increasing water bills at arms-length from the government).
The water companies wrecked this by borrowing money to pay out as dividends, but if you trash the creditors then it is surely going to be harder for the new water company to borrow money to pay for investment in water infrastructure.
Can any labour MP get through an interview without mentioning free breakfast clubs?
Actually, this is a really good policy. It just sounds underwhelming. They ought to be framing it in a way like: "modern life shits all over those who are trying to do their bit: those who are trying to both work and raise a family - those who are doing their bit for the future of our country - find countless obstacles in their way. Labour are trying to dismantle those obstacles."
I've used breakfast clubs, and even to me they sound fluffy and peripheral (which they very much are not). Perhaps its the association with the 80s film.
Preparation for school clubs. But Labour doesn't like prep schools.
It was quite a shock when my children got to be school age to find that the state expected me to drop my kids off no later than 8.50am in the morning every day with my employer expecting me to arrive at work 6 miles away at 9am. You could get round this by taking them to breakfast club, but this was £5 a day (ten years ago - I guess it will be more now). Actually having some provision where you can drop them off early, for free, in order to get to work feels like at least the state isn't actively kicking you in the face for trying to do your bit. For me, breakfast is an added bonus (though for many children it will be critical).
Back in the day this sort of thing would have been sorted out informally. You'd drop your kid off early at the house of a friend* of theirs, and they'd go to school with them, and you'd do some other favour in return.
* Or, perhaps they wouldn't like the kid, but you know the parents from church, or they're a cousin, or some other social circle in the community.
Back in my day - and I'm not THAT old, this was the early 80s - your 8 year old child would walk to school on his own. And he could just wait in the playground with his friends, playing, until it was time to go in. Mind you, in those days, the majority of mums were either stay at homes or just had part time jobs locally, so even if the kids needed to be accompanied there was less pressure to do so.
People often make a false leap here that the culture has changed because the roads are riskier when the polar opposite is the case.
In the 1980s it peaked at approximately 400 child pedestrians a year dying.
Most recent figures put that at 20.
A 95% decrease.
People are more risk averse nowadays.
As @Cookie says the difference to when I was growing up in 1970s and early 1980s is astounding.
No one. Literally no one was dropped off by car at our primary school as far as I recall. I don't even recall anyone being walked there by their parents. You walked to school and played in the play ground.
At secondary school there were a handful who were dropped off by car but that's it.
Barty always uses this circular logic to claim the roads are safer. If we returned to the rate of walking and cycling that we had in the 80s, fatalities would rocket (particularly given the number of SUVs on the school run).
I hope my area makes good progress on LTNs, cycle infrastructure, school streets etc in the next few years so I can let any hypothetical children play and walk to school.
Your claim is total bollocks though.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
You think more kids walk to school now than in the 80s?
I think more total walking happens than in the 80s.
Not kids to school, for the two reasons already mentioned - people are more risk averse today which has eroded children's independence, and more dual working parent families who can't afford to walk the kids to school as my mum did with me in the 80s.
You think there are more kids out on the streets than in the 80s?
I have answered that twice.
Do you think kids on the streets are down by 95%?
I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case tbh. Social media, video consoles, TV etc have all arrived since then.
I had not anticipated Starmer's response to be "Fuck off the lot of you, I'm the Prime Minister". But in retrospect I probably should have. That's how he got the job.
Stubborness is an underrated survival quality.
Probably not enough here though.
Unless one candidate can (a) get 81 signatures and (b) win the membership it might be.
If there is a contest of Streeting v Starmer there’s a good chance Starmer would win.
Isn't the only thing that is enabling Starmer to defy political gravity, even for a moment, the hope that a contest can be avoided?
As a scout back in Brum in my youth we would sing 'In the Manchester slums' at one of the leader's wives, who was from Manchester.
No idea where that song came from thinking back and we got bollocked for it obviously.
"You look in the bin for something to eat, you pull out a rat and you think it's a treat, in your Glasgow slum" - a popular ditty on the East Coast back in my day.
In Aberdeen, it applies to everywhere from Dundee southwards, including Edinburgh.
It was Liverpool where I grew up.
In my Liverpool Home, In my Liverpool Home We speak with an accent exceedingly rare, Meet under a statue exceedingly bare, And if you want a Cathedral, we've got one to spare In my Liverpool Home
This is actually a pretty good list. 2,3,4 and 5 in particular.
If any of the leadership contenders could deliver it with genuine speed (as opposed to "with speed", which is Civil Service / Starmerese for somewhere between slow and never). then they'd get my vote. If I had one.
One of the prominent Labour MPs yesterday calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation was Chris Curtis. He is chair of the Labour Growth Group and today it has published a major report with proposals for a Labour government. The full document is here ( https://www.labourgrowth.co.uk ) and this is what the Labour Growth Group says are its six main ideas.
1. Tax gains fairly, cut National Insurance on work. Reform Capital Gains Tax so gains built in Britain are taxed more fairly, while genuine investment and risk-taking are protected. Close death and exit loopholes … 2. Make Clean Power reach the meter. Cut bills with radical energy market reform. Redefine the central mission of Clean Power 2030 from “clean capacity announced” to clean power delivered to British homes and businesses at the lowest total system cost … 3. A ‘Build Britain Act’: decide once, then build. For nationally significant infrastructure including the grid, reservoirs, transport, energy, defence production and strategic compute, Parliament should decide the national interest up front … 4. The most radical English devolution settlement in modern times. Abolish the regeneration ‘begging bowl’ of competitive funding pots. Replace them with long-term settlements for Strategic Authorities. Give mayors and capable local leaders real powers over transport, housing, skills, land assembly, local infrastructure and business support … 5. End fake-market capitalism in essentials. If Thames Water cannot stand on its own obligations, it should enter special administration. Creditors take losses … 6. Build a real Department of the Prime Minister. Break open the Cabinet Office. Build a command centre at the heart of government with authority over delivery stocktakes, programme-critical appointments, Treasury dispute resolution and data tracking … (Guardian)
Local government is an absolute mess. Low quality councillors in all parties. Too much power in the hands of unelected Officers who dominate policy making. Consultation process completely devalued by councils not listening.
More devolution without sorting out the fundamental weaknesses will lead to more chaos.
I don't agree with some of that at all. I spent a lot of my professional career in local Government.
The first and most obvious point is no two councils are the same - every Council with which I was involved had its own culture, values and ways of getting things done.
Yes, there was an issue of Officers wanting to be Members but that was often counterbalanced by Members wanting to be Officers. The Members took the strategic decisions but the implementation was down to Officers who reported back regularly on progress (or lack of it) to Members. Some Members loved to get involved with the minutiae and that wasn't helpful.
The other two issues were Government interference - moving the goalposts and constantly wanting information - and the change in Council governance structure from Committee to Cabinet. In the Cabinet structure, the only Members who mattered were Cabinet holders - all the others were essentially backbenchers who didn't have a lot to do on the Council except attend the odd meeting and be voting fodder.
In the old-fashioned Committee structure, more Members mattered and the overall quality of decision making was higher.
I have seen the abuse of power by officers at first hand locally. Activists in positions of power, recruiting more to their departments in their own image and entrenching a particular agenda.
The poor quality councillors were unwilling or unable to stand up to the officers.
I know how good councillors can be. But the quality has dropped over the past 20 years.
I want to see a robust, enforceable and independently run consultation process that will stop councils riding roughshod over the outcomes.
Proper non partisan and non activist officer recruitment.
And better quality control of council candidates combined with decent training for them once elected.
Comments
We are at a real and significant disadvantage to both less democratic countries and democracies that are more stable on long term investment.
There is no incentive at all for councils to build. If you want to change that, do something radical like allocating LA grants based on the number of children in each - then you’d suddenly have them approving decent family sized homes, encouraging downsizing, building neighbourhoods and schools…
Polanski says he's going to pay his council tax. Is there any possibility there of punitive action? It seems unlikely his council would bother. And if not, then maybe he's nipped the story in the bud. Still, he can't go after Rayner in the leader's debate before the next general election on her not paying tax.
Seriously injured is ~13 times that, so over 1000 pedestrians under 16 seriously injured
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2024/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2024
Really was jobs for the boys back in the 90s, when there were both regional and local/district councillors
Sigh
It's eternal now, isn't it? Like some circle of Purgatory. HS2 will be digging up my street, one way or another, for the rest of recorded time
If Streeting wants it, I think he has to make a bombshell resignation speech and a direct challenge, drawing a line between him and the disaster of the last ~2 years. And getting in before Burnham is out of bed. Risk is that the members then go with Rayner, keeping Starmer, or Mr Bacon Sandwich. But he should risk it for a biscuit or his chance is gone forever.
What fun. The beauty of a protracted leadership fandango is it means a nice long period of the parliament where none of them get the chance to lay waste to the country with their “policies”.
..However the Times reported that the Green Party leader and his partner "appear in recent years to have stayed on a narrowboat at a marina", adding a local launderette said it had often done laundry for Polanski and his partner from 2023 to 2025.
Polanski, along with several other individuals also thought to have boats in the marina, used a nearby building as a postal address. The marina is part of Waltham Forest borough council, and the Mail reported that he had been registered to vote there...
(The reality is that there is a shortage of quality houses that people want to buy. So prices get bid up to the maximum a two income family can afford. The way to address this is to build more houses)
Granted twin A managed to pull it off with a smallish gift from me but that's because we hit incredibly lucky when hunting for a house. If I hadn't searched one morning when bored and we hadn't moved immediately she would still be here at home - but she also has 2 tenants in the property covering the mortgage costs.
Admittedly 18 months of that appear to have been spent trying to get Thames Water to pull their finger out & do some actual work.
The prime minister's authority is draining moment by moment, and it's drained a little more with the resignation of Jess Phillips...
..A deep frustration, you hear it articulated in the letter, that Labour governments don't come along all that often, and they are aware that time is tight. There's also a deep frustration in their view that they haven't got done as much as they would like to.
Here is Phillips saying publicly what plenty of her colleagues I've heard say to me privately.
Whatever one thinks of Phillips, that has been a constant refrain on PB too, from all sides of the political spectrum.
And it's true.
It's simply absurd for Starmer to say, nearly two years into government, "just give me a bit more time".
He's wasted too much already.
https://youtu.be/l-LWZtJBCwY
Let them go into administration. The business continues operating.
This sheds the debt that has been weighing them down.
The government backs the bills of the suppliers, with a loan to the rejuvenated Thames Water to pay that back. With little other debt, that would easily paid. Given a sensible interest rate, it would make a profit.
It is a total nightmare of bad planning
The first and most obvious point is no two councils are the same - every Council with which I was involved had its own culture, values and ways of getting things done.
Yes, there was an issue of Officers wanting to be Members but that was often counterbalanced by Members wanting to be Officers. The Members took the strategic decisions but the implementation was down to Officers who reported back regularly on progress (or lack of it) to Members. Some Members loved to get involved with the minutiae and that wasn't helpful.
The other two issues were Government interference - moving the goalposts and constantly wanting information - and the change in Council governance structure from Committee to Cabinet. In the Cabinet structure, the only Members who mattered were Cabinet holders - all the others were essentially backbenchers who didn't have a lot to do on the Council except attend the odd meeting and be voting fodder.
In the old-fashioned Committee structure, more Members mattered and the overall quality of decision making was higher.
Given the response of the markets to even small increases in the current government deficit, they might be right about this as well sadly.
I suspect that gives cover for some more to pop their head above the parapet.
In your Glasgow slums,
In your Glasgow slums,
You look in the bucket for something to eat,
You find a dead rat and you think it's a treat,
In your Glasgow slums."
In your Gla as gow slums.
The amounts of walking and cycling is UP not down.
It is not just a claim that roads are safer, it is fact. Down by 95% is well outside margin of error.
The change is not danger. It is risk aversion and dual working parents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Davies-Jones
As the sixth British PM in a decade is about to resign, we now have Italian politics without the cuisine
‘Only buy a house you can afford with a lawful mortgage’ would be another.
House prices have skyrocketed not due to dual incomes but because of supply and demand. Build more houses than demand and it would correct, but people are afraid of a correction.
Second incomes should be able to go on luxuries, holidays, extras, not necessities.
Probably not enough here though.
Go back to 1997-2002 and you can witness in house prices the impact of lending going from 3+1 incomes to first 3+3 incomes and then 4+4 incomes
Not kids to school, for the two reasons already mentioned - people are more risk averse today which has eroded children's independence, and more dual working parent families who can't afford to walk the kids to school as my mum did with me in the 80s.
If there is a contest of Streeting v Starmer there’s a good chance Starmer would win.
It is why water was nationalised in the first place, Radio 4 "Rinsed" airing now.
She is my sister and my nieces MP. They’ve never heard of her.
In Hereford we would taunt Cardiff fans with
In your Cardiff slums,
In your Cardiff slums,
You look in the dustbin for pieces of meat,
You find a dead dog and you think it's a treat
Dead dog and mustard is something to eat,
In your Cardiff slums.
Nonetheless, they nearly always beat us
It’s mad you can’t grasp this. The reason fatalities have collapsed is because kids don’t play outside, walk to the shop, walk to school, cycle to football.
I think that’s very sad and why I think we should reclaim our neighbourhoods for them.
If there were sufficient supply, then people could say they are not interested in a tiny overpriced box as they will go elsewhere instead.
A new leader could announce their intention to rejoin. The process of doing so would span more than one election, and absent a confirmatory referendum, I doubt it would last. And the EU knows that too, so it isn’t happening.
I suspect a referendum will slip into the manifesto though. Probably on something like the EEA.
Do you think kids on the streets are down by 95%?
The way to deal with that is some Failure.
The water companies wrecked this by borrowing money to pay out as dividends, but if you trash the creditors then it is surely going to be harder for the new water company to borrow money to pay for investment in water infrastructure.
We speak with an accent exceedingly rare,
Meet under a statue exceedingly bare,
And if you want a Cathedral, we've got one to spare
In my Liverpool Home
The Spinners version is the one I remember.
A really interesting Delft tile can easily be £200
I wonder if I am the only person using them as coasters. If so, everyone else is missing out. They are brilliant at that
The poor quality councillors were unwilling or unable to stand up to the officers.
I know how good councillors can be. But the quality has dropped over the past 20 years.
I want to see a robust, enforceable and independently run consultation process that will stop councils riding roughshod over the outcomes.
Proper non partisan and non activist officer recruitment.
And better quality control of council candidates combined with decent training for them once elected.