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.
Protect the actual suppliers.
The new water company *should* make lenders more aware of what they are lending for.
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.
On a real basis, London prices are at least 20% below their peak and even more than that in some boroughs. While less severe nationally, the pattern is similar. The primary reason of course, is the impact on demand from higher borrowing costs / stress tested affordability criteria). It’s perverse to think the availability of mortgage finance does not impact prices.
Seen elsewhere, the suggestion that Starmer is clinging on in the hope of a few executive seats at the World Cup...
Starmer is such a petty yet greedy twat, I can actually believe that
When he came into power and it was instantly revealed that he was grasping at free spectacles, lingerie, Arsenal seats, from the get-go, I compared him and his wife to a horrible rich middle aged couple that checks into an historic but struggling 3 star hotel and immediately steals all the free soap, combs, little towels, maybe a bathrobe
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.
There doesn't seem to be much appetite by the EU for the UK to rejoin anyway, as they quite reasonably believe that they could be facing a Reform led UK government starting the whole leave process over again. The EU would have to be very confident that the UK isn't going to change its mind in say the next 30-50 years before inviting us to rejoin.
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?
Depends on how thick his skin is. Seems likely he’d get enough MPs backing him to be nominated if he wanted to be. And under the members voting system, he might still end up being the compromise candidate, especially if Miliband teamed up as his Chancellor.
Of course he could just try and do that now and probably avoid the contest.
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.
Protect the actual suppliers.
The new water company *should* make lenders more aware of what they are lending for.
If they wanted to try something interesting they could set up NuThames Water as a Co-Op.
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.
Protect the actual suppliers.
The new water company *should* make lenders more aware of what they are lending for.
If they wanted to try something interesting they could set up NuThames Water as a Co-Op.
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.
Protect the actual suppliers.
The new water company *should* make lenders more aware of what they are lending for.
If they wanted to try something interesting they could set up NuThames Water as a Co-Op.
Two of my children are either looking for work or to change jobs. They - and those like them - matter far more than the egos of Burnham, Streeting or anyone else.
Really sick of the economy being held hostage to the egos of these pillocks. No matter who becomes PM - if Starmer goes - this nonsense makes me even less likely to vote Labour than before. Since the alternatives are so unappealing I was reluctantly thinking that they might be the least worst of the options. But not with this sort of childish drama queening.
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?
Depends on how thick his skin is. Seems likely he’d get enough MPs backing him to be nominated if he wanted to be. And under the members voting system, he might still end up being the compromise candidate, especially if Miliband teamed up as his Chancellor.
Of course he could just try and do that now and probably avoid the contest.
I don't think a sitting leader actually needs to be nominated, but would he stand a snowball's chance if he stood?
Gilts heading north of 5.1% all stems back to the winter fuel reversal. From that point on the backbenchers knew the gov't was a soft touch so could push back on any sort of welfare cuts. The beginning of the end.
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?
Depends on how thick his skin is. Seems likely he’d get enough MPs backing him to be nominated if he wanted to be. And under the members voting system, he might still end up being the compromise candidate, especially if Miliband teamed up as his Chancellor.
Of course he could just try and do that now and probably avoid the contest.
I don't think a sitting leader actually needs to be nominated, but would he stand a snowball's chance if he stood?
I don’t know how many first prefs he’d get, but I imagine the strong views on each wing about the opposite wing means he might get a lot of transfers. This is actually why beyond this thought experiment, I still think the gig is Milibands if he wants it.
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.
I am surprised.
Like her or loathe her Phillips ( and I think she has bigger balls than those men currently attempting to replace Starmer) has been very vocal in women's safeguarding realms for years, and is very much high profile in your original neck of the woods calling everyone "bab". The smear promoted by @moonshine is what I consider to be bullshit and was propogated by Elon Musk. You know Elon Musk the alleged friend of Epstein, only Epstein thought he was too much of a tit to be in with his "in crowd".
Two of my children are either looking for work or to change jobs. They - and those like them - matter far more than the egos of Burnham, Streeting or anyone else.
Really sick of the economy being held hostage to the egos of these pillocks. No matter who becomes PM - if Starmer goes - this nonsense makes me even less likely to vote Labour than before. Since the alternatives are so unappealing I was reluctantly thinking that they might be the least worst of the options. But not with this sort of childish drama queening.
What's really mad about all this is that there's nobody clearly better than Starmer waiting in the wings, at best Labour might find someone mildly more personable and competent, whereas most of the suggested candidates appear to be worse than Starmer. The Labour Party is panicking and seems to be about to leap out of the frying pan into the fire.
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.
Lack of clear role definition and decision-making boundaries between members and officers is, in my view and experience, the most common reason why councils run into trouble. It’s a particular problem at first tier level, and a reason why so many town and parish councils are dysfunctional, as relatively few people at first tier have a clue what they are supposed to be doing, and there’s no real induction or training. Hence you land up with councillors who see their role as going round doing stuff and officers - usually the town clerk - who (in mitigation often because they are surrounded by numpties) can easily slip into thinking that they’re the key decision maker and that the councillors work for them.
At principal council level, where there should be professional staff, and members mostly come through the party structure with induction and training available both from the council and their political parties, there’s a lot less excuse.
Isle of Wight council recently commissioned a review of its governance and behaviours, following various officer/member conflicts, and the guy who did it - Penn - came up with a reasonably decent report in which he focussed on lack of clear boundaries between the member and officer role, with examples of both sides stepping across the line, as the fundamental reason why the council was heading towards dysfunction. Sadly, neither the media nor many of the members, judging from the debate, really understood the fundamentals of that issue and focussed instead on the bad behaviour, so all that got reported in the media was yet another article about a few councillors behaving badly. I don’t think the council ever followed through on the more fundamental matters flagged by the Penn Report, and now it’s as good as fallen to Reform, I’d expect the officers to continue to overreach in order to try and herd the mass of entirely new, inexperienced councillors in what they see as the right direction, and Penn’s primary diagnosis will go unaddressed.
Tough - very tough - reading indeed. Utterly gruesome. But very necessary given the number of deniers around and the even greater number who think this is justified. Or can be ignored because the victims somehow deserved it.
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.
On a real basis, London prices are at least 20% below their peak and even more than that in some boroughs. While less severe nationally, the pattern is similar. The primary reason of course, is the impact on demand from higher borrowing costs / stress tested affordability criteria). It’s perverse to think the availability of mortgage finance does not impact prices.
20% below peak is a tiny start but it will take a lot more than that to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades of inflation.
The primary reason is lack of supply, not mortgages. If there were sufficient supply then people would not need to max out mortgages as they could shop around.
Plus you disregard the two facts that (a) a very significant chunk of working people can not get a mortgage today, despite paying rents, due to our obscenely high house prices, so it is moot for them; and (b) a very significant chunk of sales are made by "cash purchases" (typically to be let out) and have no mortgage so it is moot for them too.
I'd like to see this mythical software that Jess Phillips was proposing that would save all the children and not invade everyone's privacy. I can understand resigning because she no longer has confidence in the leader but that kind of dig just seems unnecessary and makes her look stupid.
BBC Mason - A further update on my previous post - where I reported that Labour's backbench parliamentary committee has been blocked from seeing the prime minister.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
I'd like to see this mythical software that Jess Phillips was proposing that would save all the children and not invade everyone's privacy. I can understand resigning because she no longer has confidence in the leader but that kind of dig just seems unnecessary and makes her look stupid.
It would just use the same principle as a filter so it’s less invasive than it sounds.
I'd like to see this mythical software that Jess Phillips was proposing that would save all the children and not invade everyone's privacy. I can understand resigning because she no longer has confidence in the leader but that kind of dig just seems unnecessary and makes her look stupid.
BBC Mason - A further update on my previous post - where I reported that Labour's backbench parliamentary committee has been blocked from seeing the prime minister.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
And now we know why Steiner’s counter-attack never materialised. The orders never crossed his desk.
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.
I was thinking the same about three syllable names not scanning. Presumably it depends which one you grew up with.
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.
On a real basis, London prices are at least 20% below their peak and even more than that in some boroughs. While less severe nationally, the pattern is similar. The primary reason of course, is the impact on demand from higher borrowing costs / stress tested affordability criteria). It’s perverse to think the availability of mortgage finance does not impact prices.
And to put that into perspective, the elasticity of demand in somewhere like London would have required something like 800,000 new homes to have been built to achieve the same fall.
A lot easier to look at demand-side interventions.
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.
I am surprised.
Like her or loathe her Phillips ( and I think she has bigger balls than those men currently attempting to replace Starmer) has been very vocal in women's safeguarding realms for years, and is very much high profile in your original neck of the woods calling everyone "bab". The smear promoted by @moonshine is what I consider to be bullshit and was propogated by Elon Musk. You know Elon Musk the alleged friend of Epstein, only Epstein thought he was too much of a tit to be in with his "in crowd".
She has been very vocal. But as a junior Minister she has achieved fuck all. She was meant to come up with a strategy for how VAWG was to be tackled. We are still waiting.
Actions. Not words.
Women have been inundated with words. But little action. Cynically Lammy has tried to use rape as a justification for his proposals limiting jury trials rather than actually implementing the manifesto proposals on specialist courts for crimes of sexual violence. Cynical misuse of women's pain, a pat on the head, a refusal to implement the law on women's rights and endless words is all women have got from Labour. Our very own @DavidL has certainly done more for women than Jess Phillips.
Utter cowardice from Mahmood and co. You’re in the cabinet, are briefing you have no confidence in your leader’s leadership, but you’re staying in your job… because?
BBC Mason - A further update on my previous post - where I reported that Labour's backbench parliamentary committee has been blocked from seeing the prime minister.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
And now we know why Steiner’s counter-attack never materialised. The orders never crossed his desk.
I think when this is all over we are going to how disfunctional #10 was.
BBC Mason - A further update on my previous post - where I reported that Labour's backbench parliamentary committee has been blocked from seeing the prime minister.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
This is what finished Boris off; the lack of contact with reality eventually became too big to ignore.
Utter cowardice from Mahmood and co. You’re in the cabinet, are briefing you have no confidence in your leader’s leadership, but you’re staying in your job… because?
BBC Mason - A further update on my previous post - where I reported that Labour's backbench parliamentary committee has been blocked from seeing the prime minister.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
Utter cowardice from Mahmood and co. You’re in the cabinet, are briefing you have no confidence in your leader’s leadership, but you’re staying in your job… because?
No one wants to be James Purnell. I pointed this out weeks ago when the drum beat for deposing Starmer started. Labour make it extremely difficult to remove a sitting PM and right now it looks like Starmer will cling on.
Utter cowardice from Mahmood and co. You’re in the cabinet, are briefing you have no confidence in your leader’s leadership, but you’re staying in your job… because?
On a more serious note. This is politics. You have no confidence in His leadership. You tell him he needs to go and leak to the press you have done so.
He doesn't go. How do you carry on serving? And from the other side? She's effectively trying to launch a coup, albeit not one for her. Streeting absolutely is, and has told Starmer so.
How on earth are these people not sacked?
And then you understand. Starmer is too weak to sack them and they are too weak to resign. A shower of bastards, the lot of them.
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.
I am surprised.
Like her or loathe her Phillips ( and I think she has bigger balls than those men currently attempting to replace Starmer) has been very vocal in women's safeguarding realms for years, and is very much high profile in your original neck of the woods calling everyone "bab". The smear promoted by @moonshine is what I consider to be bullshit and was propogated by Elon Musk. You know Elon Musk the alleged friend of Epstein, only Epstein thought he was too much of a tit to be in with his "in crowd".
She has been very vocal. But as a junior Minister she has achieved fuck all. She was meant to come up with a strategy for how VAWG was to be tackled. We are still waiting.
Actions. Not words.
Women have been inundated with words. But little action. Cynically Lammy has tried to use rape as a justification for his proposals limiting jury trials rather than actually implementing the manifesto proposals on specialist courts for crimes of sexual violence. Cynical misuse of women's pain, a pat on the head, a refusal to implement the law on women's rights and endless words is all women have got from Labour. Our very own @DavidL has certainly done more for women than Jess Phillips.
Yeah, she’s very good at publicising herself but when it comes to achievements she is, as an old colleague used to say ‘all piss and wind’.
Moonshines comments were not a smear. But a verbatim quote.
BBC Mason - A further update on my previous post - where I reported that Labour's backbench parliamentary committee has been blocked from seeing the prime minister.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
This is what finished Boris off; the lack of contact with reality eventually became too big to ignore.
BBC Mason - A further update on my previous post - where I reported that Labour's backbench parliamentary committee has been blocked from seeing the prime minister.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
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
Firstly, no we couldn't "seamlessly rejoin"; it would take years, and realistically could only happen after the next general election, at the earliest.
Secondly, that 60% is not a solid voting block; it's a casual response to an opinion poll.
But you would probably be right to say that campaigning for rejoin would win more votes than it lost at the next election.
And a UK government declaring it was committed to rejoin would likely settle the bond markets a bit, too.
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.
I am surprised.
Like her or loathe her Phillips ( and I think she has bigger balls than those men currently attempting to replace Starmer) has been very vocal in women's safeguarding realms for years, and is very much high profile in your original neck of the woods calling everyone "bab". The smear promoted by @moonshine is what I consider to be bullshit and was propogated by Elon Musk. You know Elon Musk the alleged friend of Epstein, only Epstein thought he was too much of a tit to be in with his "in crowd".
That is not a smear, you dribbling halfwit
That is a precisely accurate quote. It is what Jess Philips said
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
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.
The private sector is not immune from "empire building" managers.
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.
Your experience is or was very different to mine.
I will however start by saying most of the Councils I worked for were analogous to pre-Roman Britain - a loose confederation of warring tribes who united only in the face of a common threat.
I'm not sure who these "activists" were you mention but inasmuch as each Service Head went into bat for resources for their function or activity, yes, that happened and it probably happens in private industry as well.
I'm not sure what your problem with the "consulatation process" is - the truth is most Councils know on some occasions what they want the result to be but not always.
As for "officer recruitment", at senior level, it's usually carried out by agencies and clearly the posts will be politically restricted and in any case in local Government you leave your personal politics at the door. I often came across Officers of very different individual politics to the authority for whom they were working but it didn't stop them carrying out the directed policy of that Council.
As for council candidates, a lot depends on the Party. IF you are going into a seat already held, there is usually some form of handover and training but if you win a seat from another Party, a lot depends on whether the outgoing Councillor wants to do some form of handover.The Officers will brief you and every authority for whom I worked had a Members' Induction which covered the functions of the Council, the responsibilities and obligations of the elected Councillor and the Member/Officer Protocol which set out the relationship between Officers and Members.
One of the most difficult issues was language by which I mean the language used by some Councillors in emails was wholly inappropriate and I often had to remind Councillors ALL correspondence was liable for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act including text messages if sent on Council issued mobiles which were to be used ONLY for Council business and NOT party political business.
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
We don’t know if temp or perm though.
I hope both are temporary
The @isam ban was fair. He openly insulted the mods after questioning their honesty on polls. Both are bannable offences, and he's wise enough to know that a ban would surely follow
@moonshine seems harsh. I took those remarks to refer to the Cologne attacks, but maybe phrased carelessly
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
We don’t know if temp or perm though.
I hope both are temporary
The @isam ban was fair. He openly insulted the mods after questioning their honesty on polls. Both are bannable offences, and he's wise enough to know that a ban would surely follow
@moonshine seems harsh. I took those remarks to refer to the Cologne attacks, but maybe phrased carelessly
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
We don’t know if temp or perm though.
I hope both are temporary
The @isam ban was fair. He openly insulted the mods after questioning their honesty on polls. Both are bannable offences, and he's wise enough to know that a ban would surely follow
@moonshine seems harsh. I took those remarks to refer to the Cologne attacks, but maybe phrased carelessly
Hey ho. It's not my site
The remarks were the cologne attacks. It’s well known Phillips said it and diminished what happened there. Ive had many a night on Broad Street in the past. Never anything like Cologne.
Isam should have just found out where TSE lived and sent him a Hawaiin pizza.
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
I think it is fair to say Isam at least was the author of his own downfall.
Don't know why Alexanders can't just call themselves Alec. If that diminutive was good enough for Sir Alec Douglas Home, it should be good enough for every other Alexander.
Alex is obviously for Alexandra.
And that's all I have to say about this important matter.
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
I think it is fair to say Isam at least was the author of his own downfall.
Don't know why Alexanders can't just call themselves Alec. If that diminutive was good enough for Sir Alec Douglas Home, it should be good enough for every other Alexander.
Alex is obviously for Alexandra.
And that's all I have to say about this important matter.
Alec the Great doesn't have the same ring somehow.
23 RFM 19 GRN 17 LAB 16 CON 13 IND 12 LD 1 WORKERS.
Realistically Green, Lab,LD=50/101 then try to co-opt some of the indies on individual policies
Reform told itv earlier they could not form an administration so will have to be some kind of left alliance
Got to ask what happens when no combination can create a majority - is it possible for a new election to occur after x months
I'm just reading up on this in the Kirklees context, that there would be a full council vote on the administration formation.
In our case it is most likely a Reform minority administration which likely to be agreed would require a positive vote from the Conservative groups or abstention from both the Conservatives and some of the more amenable Independents.
So, I think that the process would be similar for Birmingham, but the amount of pre-building would be greater.
23 RFM 19 GRN 17 LAB 16 CON 13 IND 12 LD 1 WORKERS.
Realistically Green, Lab,LD=50/101 then try to co-opt some of the indies on individual policies
Reform told itv earlier they could not form an administration so will have to be some kind of left alliance
Got to ask what happens when no combination can create a majority
On one hand, a council administration doesn't need an absolute majority, though good luck passing a budget without at least tacit tolerance from enough members. I wonder what the deepest minority council administration out there is?
(Gosport is now C11 Ref10 LD6 Ind1; hard to imagine the Lib Dems wanting to throw their weight behind either of the bigger groups. Why do I keep ending up living in places with insane local government?)
I suspect that Starmer would win a head to head against Streeting with Labour MPs, either because they prefer Starmer to Streeting, or because they prefer a different candidate.
If several candidates get 81+ supporting MPs (say Streeting and Rayner) then Starmer would still win against a split opposition.
I think he is safe, unless there is a mass resignation of his cabinet or when Burnham gets into parliament.
But it goes to the members surely?
Yes. All candidates who get through the entire nomination process go on the ballot to members and affiliates. This could be 4 max as 81x5 is 405 and there are only 403 Labour MPs at this minute, + the PM who doesn't need nominating. The max is 4+ the PM.
When a party is in power the 100k membership should not be allowed to decide who should be PM. It really is disgraceful.
Four MPs now say they have been in touch with allies of Al Carns and are convinced he is preparing a run for the leadership - although likely only if the PM stands down first
Sunny here in the Lake District so I'm hoping we've finally turned into Italy.
We've got its politics and corruption so we may as well get all the better bits as well.
We've had heavy falls of hailstones today, enough to whiten the grass at one point. Nicer now. One of the great things about British weather compared to anywhere else is that if you don't like it wait an hour and it will be something else.
23 RFM 19 GRN 17 LAB 16 CON 13 IND 12 LD 1 WORKERS.
Realistically Green, Lab,LD=50/101 then try to co-opt some of the indies on individual policies
Reform told itv earlier they could not form an administration so will have to be some kind of left alliance
Got to ask what happens when no combination can create a majority
On one hand, a council administration doesn't need an absolute majority, though good luck passing a budget without at least tacit tolerance from enough members. I wonder what the deepest minority council administration out there is?
(Gosport is now C11 Ref10 LD6 Ind1; hard to imagine the Lib Dems wanting to throw their weight behind either of the bigger groups. Why do I keep ending up living in places with insane local government?)
Isn't the next budget deadline Feb 2027 ? That's quite a bit of time to sort something out.
23 RFM 19 GRN 17 LAB 16 CON 13 IND 12 LD 1 WORKERS.
Realistically Green, Lab,LD=50/101 then try to co-opt some of the indies on individual policies
Reform told itv earlier they could not form an administration so will have to be some kind of left alliance
Got to ask what happens when no combination can create a majority
On one hand, a council administration doesn't need an absolute majority, though good luck passing a budget without at least tacit tolerance from enough members. I wonder what the deepest minority council administration out there is?
(Gosport is now C11 Ref10 LD6 Ind1; hard to imagine the Lib Dems wanting to throw their weight behind either of the bigger groups. Why do I keep ending up living in places with insane local government?)
23 RFM 19 GRN 17 LAB 16 CON 13 IND 12 LD 1 WORKERS.
So 51 for a majority? What are the independents? Centre-left? So I assume a grand coalition of G/L/LD/Ind, Kemi having ruled out Con / Reform
Has Kemi told the Tory leader in Bradford? He seemed quite keen. Cos there'll be no majority at all there otherwise.
I keep banging on about this - but to me the obvious coalition partners should be Con and Lab (and perhaps LD, if they need further support).
In Bradford that would only work with the Greens as well. And that would be a majority of 1 with 3 vacancies. As a blanket policy excluding Reform altogether isn't going to work in practice.
Four MPs now say they have been in touch with allies of Al Carns and are convinced he is preparing a run for the leadership - although likely only if the PM stands down first
Surely we need to see a number of further and significant resignations by end of today to maintain the momentum?
We shall see!
The BBC reported excitedly at 2 that they had been told by several sources there were going to be more resignations this afternoon. An hour on, nada. I think Starmer has survived for now. The Burnham supporters want their man in the field first.
Tough - very tough - reading indeed. Utterly gruesome. But very necessary given the number of deniers around and the even greater number who think this is justified. Or can be ignored because the victims somehow deserved it.
Sunny here in the Lake District so I'm hoping we've finally turned into Italy.
We've got its politics and corruption so we may as well get all the better bits as well.
We've had heavy falls of hailstones today, enough to whiten the grass at one point. Nicer now. One of the great things about British weather compared to anywhere else is that if you don't like it wait an hour and it will be something else.
Was about to remark on the pleasant weather here. But a hailstorm has started before I had chance.
Sunny here in the Lake District so I'm hoping we've finally turned into Italy.
We've got its politics and corruption so we may as well get all the better bits as well.
We've had heavy falls of hailstones today, enough to whiten the grass at one point. Nicer now. One of the great things about British weather compared to anywhere else is that if you don't like it wait an hour and it will be something else.
Was about to remark on the pleasant weather here. But a hailstorm has started before I had chance.
Gloriously sunny here a few miles south, assuming you’re in the Toon of course.
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
We don’t know if temp or perm though.
I hope both are temporary
The @isam ban was fair. He openly insulted the mods after questioning their honesty on polls. Both are bannable offences, and he's wise enough to know that a ban would surely follow
@moonshine seems harsh. I took those remarks to refer to the Cologne attacks, but maybe phrased carelessly
So @isam and @moonshine - both on the right - are banned in the same week
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
We don’t know if temp or perm though.
I hope both are temporary
The @isam ban was fair. He openly insulted the mods after questioning their honesty on polls. Both are bannable offences, and he's wise enough to know that a ban would surely follow
@moonshine seems harsh. I took those remarks to refer to the Cologne attacks, but maybe phrased carelessly
Hey ho. It's not my site
The remarks were the cologne attacks. It’s well known Phillips said it and diminished what happened there. Ive had many a night on Broad Street in the past. Never anything like Cologne.
Isam should have just found out where TSE lived and sent him a Hawaiin pizza.
I'd say Isam's comment fell into 'peevish' rather than an outright insult. Grey area.
Moonshine was basically reporting what Jess Philips had said about an incident which happened abroad - perhaps he is a victim here of an automated banning system looking for keywords?
Comments
The new water company *should* make lenders more aware of what they are lending for.
When he came into power and it was instantly revealed that he was grasping at free spectacles, lingerie, Arsenal seats, from the get-go, I compared him and his wife to a horrible rich middle aged couple that checks into an historic but struggling 3 star hotel and immediately steals all the free soap, combs, little towels, maybe a bathrobe
It is fitting if he exits the same way
Of course he could just try and do that now and probably avoid the contest.
Really sick of the economy being held hostage to the egos of these pillocks. No matter who becomes PM - if Starmer goes - this nonsense makes me even less likely to vote Labour than before. Since the alternatives are so unappealing I was reluctantly thinking that they might be the least worst of the options. But not with this sort of childish drama queening.
Like her or loathe her Phillips ( and I think she has bigger balls than those men currently attempting to replace Starmer) has been very vocal in women's safeguarding realms for years, and is very much high profile in your original neck of the woods calling everyone "bab". The smear promoted by @moonshine is what I consider to be bullshit and was propogated by Elon Musk. You know Elon Musk the alleged friend of Epstein, only Epstein thought he was too much of a tit to be in with his "in crowd".
At principal council level, where there should be professional staff, and members mostly come through the party structure with induction and training available both from the council and their political parties, there’s a lot less excuse.
Isle of Wight council recently commissioned a review of its governance and behaviours, following various officer/member conflicts, and the guy who did it - Penn - came up with a reasonably decent report in which he focussed on lack of clear boundaries between the member and officer role, with examples of both sides stepping across the line, as the fundamental reason why the council was heading towards dysfunction. Sadly, neither the media nor many of the members, judging from the debate, really understood the fundamentals of that issue and focussed instead on the bad behaviour, so all that got reported in the media was yet another article about a few councillors behaving badly. I don’t think the council ever followed through on the more fundamental matters flagged by the Penn Report, and now it’s as good as fallen to Reform, I’d expect the officers to continue to overreach in order to try and herd the mass of entirely new, inexperienced councillors in what they see as the right direction, and Penn’s primary diagnosis will go unaddressed.
https://www.civilc.org/silenced-no-more
The primary reason is lack of supply, not mortgages. If there were sufficient supply then people would not need to max out mortgages as they could shop around.
Plus you disregard the two facts that (a) a very significant chunk of working people can not get a mortgage today, despite paying rents, due to our obscenely high house prices, so it is moot for them; and (b) a very significant chunk of sales are made by "cash purchases" (typically to be let out) and have no mortgage so it is moot for them too.
Getting on with the job in the bunker. Downfall parody video required.
- Miatta Fahnbulleh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Devolution, Faith and Communities)
- Jess Phillips (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls))
- Alex Davies-Jones (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmer_ministry#Departures_from_the_Starmer_ministryhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
A lot easier to look at demand-side interventions.
Actions. Not words.
Women have been inundated with words. But little action. Cynically Lammy has tried to use rape as a justification for his proposals limiting jury trials rather than actually implementing the manifesto proposals on specialist courts for crimes of sexual violence. Cynical misuse of women's pain, a pat on the head, a refusal to implement the law on women's rights and endless words is all women have got from Labour. Our very own @DavidL has certainly done more for women than Jess Phillips.
23 RFM
19 GRN
17 LAB
16 CON
13 IND
12 LD
1 WORKERS.
Approve: 14% (-2 from 2-4 May)
Disapprove: 70% (+6)
Net: -56 (-8)
He doesn't go. How do you carry on serving? And from the other side? She's effectively trying to launch a coup, albeit not one for her. Streeting absolutely is, and has told Starmer so.
How on earth are these people not sacked?
And then you understand. Starmer is too weak to sack them and they are too weak to resign. A shower of bastards, the lot of them.
Moonshines comments were not a smear. But a verbatim quote.
A valuable rightwing commenter. What did he/she do?!
Secondly, that 60% is not a solid voting block; it's a casual response to an opinion poll.
But you would probably be right to say that campaigning for rejoin would win more votes than it lost at the next election.
And a UK government declaring it was committed to rejoin would likely settle the bond markets a bit, too.
The alternative is RFM + CON + LD.
I don't know how right or left wing Birmingham LDs are.
Edit; Brum RFM have ruled out control.
Green led rainbow coalition it is then.
That is a precisely accurate quote. It is what Jess Philips said
That would be very right wing indeed,
That's numberwang!
What are the independents? Centre-left?
So I assume a grand coalition of G/L/LD/Ind, Kemi having ruled out Con / Reform
He simply quoted Jess Phillips words in a thread about her, and it related to something overseas. Not the U.K.
If I wasn't such a tolerant, generous, sensible, even tempered chap I might suspect a tiny hint of bias, but as I am that lovable geezer with the weirdo tiles and the £9 1820s coffee cans, I don't
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-15804015/Taxpayers-fleeced-Birmingham-City-Council-pension-fund-blunder.html
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-15804015/Taxpayers-fleeced-Birmingham-City-Council-pension-fund-blunder.html
I will however start by saying most of the Councils I worked for were analogous to pre-Roman Britain - a loose confederation of warring tribes who united only in the face of a common threat.
I'm not sure who these "activists" were you mention but inasmuch as each Service Head went into bat for resources for their function or activity, yes, that happened and it probably happens in private industry as well.
I'm not sure what your problem with the "consulatation process" is - the truth is most Councils know on some occasions what they want the result to be but not always.
As for "officer recruitment", at senior level, it's usually carried out by agencies and clearly the posts will be politically restricted and in any case in local Government you leave your personal politics at the door. I often came across Officers of very different individual politics to the authority for whom they were working but it didn't stop them carrying out the directed policy of that Council.
As for council candidates, a lot depends on the Party. IF you are going into a seat already held, there is usually some form of handover and training but if you win a seat from another Party, a lot depends on whether the outgoing Councillor wants to do some form of handover.The Officers will brief you and every authority for whom I worked had a Members' Induction which covered the functions of the Council, the responsibilities and obligations of the elected Councillor and the Member/Officer Protocol which set out the relationship between Officers and Members.
One of the most difficult issues was language by which I mean the language used by some Councillors in emails was wholly inappropriate and I often had to remind Councillors ALL correspondence was liable for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act including text messages if sent on Council issued mobiles which were to be used ONLY for Council business and NOT party political business.
We've got its politics and corruption so we may as well get all the better bits as well.
The @isam ban was fair. He openly insulted the mods after questioning their honesty on polls. Both are bannable offences, and he's wise enough to know that a ban would surely follow
@moonshine seems harsh. I took those remarks to refer to the Cologne attacks, but maybe phrased carelessly
Hey ho. It's not my site
The warring factions between Burnham and Streeting have helped him . If Streeting goes for it then there’s will be a civil war in the party .
The Burnham clan want Starmer to stay on .
Cos there'll be no majority at all there otherwise.
Isam should have just found out where TSE lived and sent him a Hawaiin pizza.
Alex is obviously for Alexandra.
And that's all I have to say about this important matter.
In our case it is most likely a Reform minority administration which likely to be agreed would require a positive vote from the Conservative groups or abstention from both the Conservatives and some of the more amenable Independents.
So, I think that the process would be similar for Birmingham, but the amount of pre-building would be greater.
(Gosport is now C11 Ref10 LD6 Ind1; hard to imagine the Lib Dems wanting to throw their weight behind either of the bigger groups. Why do I keep ending up living in places with insane local government?)
Four MPs now say they have been in touch with allies of Al Carns and are convinced he is preparing a run for the leadership - although likely only if the PM stands down first
That's quite a bit of time to sort something out.
Surely we need to see a number of further and significant resignations by end of today to maintain the momentum?
We shall see!
And that would be a majority of 1 with 3 vacancies.
As a blanket policy excluding Reform altogether isn't going to work in practice.
But a hailstorm has started before I had chance.
Moonshine was basically reporting what Jess Philips had said about an incident which happened abroad - perhaps he is a victim here of an automated banning system looking for keywords?