I'm listening to the BBC News head-to-head with Nick Robinson. Blair keeps shoehorning AI in, even in bits where it's off-topic. I get the impression he thinks it's big - which is fair enough and so do I - but he doesn't know what to do about it. If he was explaining things to you, he'd be waving his arms about. He's good on big-picture and his analogies are good, but I want detail. Perhaps it's unfair to ask him for that as his essay wasn't intended to do that, but it's not what I want
My favourite bit of the Tony Blair essay his views on how to help "the north of the country". A big improvement from his old "education, education, education" conviction. Education now comes second. Infrastructure is first. That is an important lesson learned. Good. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059546481694998910
You get the feeling that if Blair had started HS2 in 1997 it would have been up and running by the time he left Downing Street in 2007.He was good at making things happen.
@ShippersUnbound Further to Blair. Literally every honest sensible person in all the main parties privately agrees with all these propositions:
- welfare spending is too high and is throwing good people on the scrapheap - defence spending is too low - the triple lock is unsustainable - without cheap energy we cannot exploit the AI revolution - we should be investing in EVERY form of energy: renewables, nuclear and the North Sea - migration needs to be controlled to boost social cohesion and because the boats look like a huge failure of the state - any new relationship with the EU will be imposed on us until we are stronger and cannot involve the closeness some desire without freedom of movement - we are deeply embedded with America in ways which the public does not understand and cannot be told and however joyous it makes us feel to hate Trump, disengagement at the deep state level is not only wholly unrealistic but also undesirable - Whitehall needs a total overhaul so specific project expertise and political appointees can be brought in quickly
Blair basically says all that.
The one thing he doesn’t say and which the same group of people agree on is this and it’s something Blair left behind:
I have not posted much recently, probably because there is so much division and discourse I just cannot see a solution
However, Blair reminds me why I voted for him twice and everything he highlights is spot on
Instead of engaging with his thoughts we have labour going into a tailspin over Irag and Blair's millions/billions whilst seeking to drift to the left that will result in simply more failure
Blair at least has opened a debate that is long overdue and maybe listen to the message rather than deflect by raising Blair's failures as an excuse to dismiss his opinions
The problem with the boats is that although they are highly visible it restricts the number who arrive here and apply for asylum.
Attach that to the fact that most (well over 50%) of those applying will get asylum and every other option is worse because while it would remove the visible boats it will increase the total number of people arriving with valid claims.
So there is no fix without changing global asylum rules and while most of Europe agree the practical side is rather difficult
Somebody made the point yesterday (I think) that we've not had figures (guesstimates?) for illegal crossings for some time. Of course, it's ben a bit breezy (here anyway) so that might have put people off.
And that's the political problem that any government will have.
There's a hysteresis in public understanding of the issue- when the boats were utterly out of control, it was (rightly) a story. Long runs of days when nobody arrives on boats is not a story. So people reasonably assume that nothing has changed.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
Also tax benefits , the amount of spongers getting the equivalent of £50K-£70K for doing nothing is unbelievable.
Whatever you think of Blair, engage with what he’s saying not how he makes you feel. The bare minimum we should expect from any leader is that they have an analysis of the current situation and a plan to deal with it which is as coherent and realistic as his intervention. Pretty well every critique I’ve read so far has failed to meet this requirement.
Over to Andy and Keir and Kemi and Nigel and Zack and all the others
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
Yes help the feckless and make the prudent hard working pay for it
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
Though Labour plus Greens plus LDs makes 47 and the 2 Burnham hypothetical polls have Labour then taking the lead. Fortunately for Burnham too Restore are fighting Reform more than him and the Tories are also putting up a candidate and the Reform candidate now turns out to have made some relatively pro Putin comments
And the Labour and LibDem votes are increasingly sensibly distributed for maximising their seat haul, with the Greens less so but only threatening to take Labour inner city seats rather than deliver that many to the right. Whereas the Tory and Reform votes are still nicely correlated.
The Blair Essay is a lot better than the headlines about it would suggest.
For example, the headlines say, "Blair tells Labour to ditch net zero and drill in the North Sea," but what the essay actually says is, "We must prioritise cheaper energy and electrification over net zero and use what is left of our North Sea oil and gas resources."
"Electrification" is the process of replacing fossil fuels with renewable electricity. It's the principle means by which net zero is delivered. The continued technological development of renewables makes them the cheap energy option in an age of geopolitical instability and fossil fuel supply disruption.
I wouldn't see this as abandoning net zero, but choosing a carrot-led approach - of concentrating on better technology to replace fossil fuels - rather than a stick-reliant approach - of restricting fossil fuel use to force adoption of other technologies. This is a long way from Trump's ideological opposition to renewables, for example.
I think Blair's Essay is weakest on Trump. He is in denial of Trump's weakness in relation to, and adulation of, Putin, Xi and other dictators, and the stark consequences this has for democracies. But I think that, as a starting point for a serious discussion about Britain's future it has a lot of merit, and is a more useful contribution than anything that has emerged from Labour's leadership wrangling, the Tories, or the Lib Dems.
Blair has to continue arguing for sticking close to the Americans regardless of how idiotic or egregious they become, as his lifetime quest to try and escape from the prison of his own tragic misjudgement.
Always guesswork reading a person's psyche - inc one's own - but I think this is probably right. It's otherwise impossible to explain why he'd completely lose his analysis/judgment chops when it comes to Donald Trump. His stuff on AI and the economy and public services, agree or not, is cogent. You can understand where he's coming from. But his take on the US under Trump2 is utterly ludicrous. Nobody with his brain could seriously think it. Ergo he doesn't. He should have left all that out. It would have made for a better product.
Arguably it made more sense back then, when the US remained firmly committed to NATO regardless of Republican or Democrat, and Europe could self-interestedly spend its peace dividend on happier things than bullets and guns, knowing that the US has us covered. Today, when the US has unreliable and capricious foreign policy, Blair’s position is potentially suicidal.
This is just the standard Trump derangement syndrome. How is the US now more unreliable and capricious than it was in Blair's era when it had a European policy of 'punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia'?
Russia had rather less to be forgiven for, back then?
My favourite bit of the Tony Blair essay his views on how to help "the north of the country". A big improvement from his old "education, education, education" conviction. Education now comes second. Infrastructure is first. That is an important lesson learned. Good. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059546481694998910
You get the feeling that if Blair had started HS2 in 1997 it would have been up and running by the time he left Downing Street in 2007.He was good at making things happen.
Whatever you think of Blair, engage with what he’s saying not how he makes you feel. The bare minimum we should expect from any leader is that they have an analysis of the current situation and a plan to deal with it which is as coherent and realistic as his intervention. Pretty well every critique I’ve read so far has failed to meet this requirement.
Over to Andy and Keir and Kemi and Nigel and Zack and all the others
Whatever you think of Blair, engage with what he’s saying not how he makes you feel. The bare minimum we should expect from any leader is that they have an analysis of the current situation and a plan to deal with it which is as coherent and realistic as his intervention. Pretty well every critique I’ve read so far has failed to meet this requirement.
Over to Andy and Keir and Kemi and Nigel and Zack and all the others
My favourite bit of the Tony Blair essay his views on how to help "the north of the country". A big improvement from his old "education, education, education" conviction. Education now comes second. Infrastructure is first. That is an important lesson learned. Good. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059546481694998910
You get the feeling that if Blair had started HS2 in 1997 it would have been up and running by the time he left Downing Street in 2007.He was good at making things happen.
Was he any less London-centric than the rest ?
His constituency was Sedgefield which is between me and Taz, so some poshish bits of County Durham and some really poor villages.
And the ECML is a decent service so the need for HS2 is not obvious from round here
On some of the key points in the Blair Essay as mentioned by Shipman.
welfare spending is too high and is throwing good people on the scrapheap- I don't understand.
defence spending is too low - I don't agree. I think the "threat" from Russia is being overstated to create a climate in which increased defence spending (especially simultaenous with cuts in welfare) can be sold. Yes, we can move a little higher but whan I see 5% of GDP being mentioned, no, not sustainable.
the triple lock is unsustainable yes but as we all know pensioners vote and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. It can be sold within the context of a general belt tightening.
without cheap energy we cannot exploit the AI revolution - we can do a lot with cheap energy but from where is that cheap energy coming? I'd argue if we could get back to the kind of energy pricing we enjoyed in the early 2000s we'd see economic growth resume. I'd also question the amount of energy wr use to store all the data we are creating and look at data de-carbonisation.
we should be investing in EVERY form of energy: renewables, nuclear and the North Sea - quite right.
migration needs to be controlled to boost social cohesion and because the boats look like a huge failure of the state - like everyone else, he has no answer to the "small boats" but at least he isn't talking about wide scale deportation.
any new relationship with the EU will be imposed on us until we are stronger and cannot involve the closeness some desire without freedom of movement - I'm afraid those who want us to Rejoin miss this point. FoM and the Single Currency have never been popular and until they become so we will be outside the EU.
Current polling shows strong support for FoM.
Citation required. I rather suspect you will not see "strong support for FoM" in Makerfield.
Unless the "movement" is "fuck off back where you came from".
Also, what does "special access" mean? We have special access. That's what an FTA is. And if they mean "single market membership" why not just say so? And I'm not sure what the "travel" part is supposed to mean - that also exists already.
I suppose on a very narrow plank you could claim Switzerland, but that's not available anyway.
The Blair Essay is a lot better than the headlines about it would suggest.
For example, the headlines say, "Blair tells Labour to ditch net zero and drill in the North Sea," but what the essay actually says is, "We must prioritise cheaper energy and electrification over net zero and use what is left of our North Sea oil and gas resources."
"Electrification" is the process of replacing fossil fuels with renewable electricity. It's the principle means by which net zero is delivered. The continued technological development of renewables makes them the cheap energy option in an age of geopolitical instability and fossil fuel supply disruption.
I wouldn't see this as abandoning net zero, but choosing a carrot-led approach - of concentrating on better technology to replace fossil fuels - rather than a stick-reliant approach - of restricting fossil fuel use to force adoption of other technologies. This is a long way from Trump's ideological opposition to renewables, for example.
I think Blair's Essay is weakest on Trump. He is in denial of Trump's weakness in relation to, and adulation of, Putin, Xi and other dictators, and the stark consequences this has for democracies. But I think that, as a starting point for a serious discussion about Britain's future it has a lot of merit, and is a more useful contribution than anything that has emerged from Labour's leadership wrangling, the Tories, or the Lib Dems.
The problem is that if every country decides to use what is left of their fossil fuel reserves, the world is doomed. How can we avoid this?
Not if we are substituting imports for domestic production while transitioning to clean power. 🤦♂️
We need to transition and stop burning oil and gas not stop producing it. If every country does that, then the likes of Saudi Arabia will be left with fossil fuels they don't use as they have no customers for it.
As I understand it, most of the North Sea oil isn't refined domestically but is exported. So increasing North Sea oil production does very little to reduce imports. While North Sea oil production may be good from an economic point of view, it is disingenuous to suggest that it makes environmental sense.
By that logic it makes absolutely no difference to the environment whatsoever if we extract our oil and export it, or leave it in the ground, since oil is fungible and if we don't extract ours, someone else will extract theirs.
What matters is transitioning to clean power and ceasing to burn fossil fuels. Doing what is economically sensible and then using that money to invest in clean technologies is both economically and environmentally sound.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
I have a Freedom Pass in London which enables me to travel freely on buses, tubes and light railways within the M25. I'd pay at least £100 pa for that. It's worth more than £2 a week. If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
One of the sharper points is his noting Blair's advocacy of unconditional support for Trump, versus the conditional/transactional recommendation for how we deal with the EU. That's poor policy on it's own terms, but the you take into account the massive unpopularity of Trump in the UK (and especially with Labour voters), it's just cloud cuckoo land to expect any current UK government, let alone a Labour government, to adopt it.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
I have a Freedom Pass in London which enables me to travel freely on buses, tubes and light railways within the M25. I'd pay at least £100 pa for that. It's worth more than £2 a week. If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
The age for getting it should be returned to state pension age. The way Johnson dropped the age to sixty and left the Boroughs to pick up the massive tab was utterly disgraceful,
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
It sounds like a shopping compulsion that gives him some sort of relief? A condition. Gambling can be like that. And sex.
Compulsion as anxiety management is quite common and a bit mundane. If I was being silly I'd maybe do a Freudian take on fetishistic displacement. Not even honest with himself enough to spend it on hookers!
In all honesty I expect jail might be a bit of a relief for him, that's the end of that part of his life.
My favourite bit of the Tony Blair essay his views on how to help "the north of the country". A big improvement from his old "education, education, education" conviction. Education now comes second. Infrastructure is first. That is an important lesson learned. Good. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059546481694998910
You get the feeling that if Blair had started HS2 in 1997 it would have been up and running by the time he left Downing Street in 2007.He was good at making things happen.
Was he any less London-centric than the rest ?
His constituency was Sedgefield which is between me and Taz, so some poshish bits of County Durham and some really poor villages.
And the ECML is a decent service so the need for HS2 is not obvious from round here
And Mandelson was MP for Hartlepool. I meant his government's policy rather than his constituency.
The government is spending more money on lawyers for the Post Office than on the criminal investigation. One reason almost certainly relates to Project Brisbane - a report prepared by the Post Office's lawyers, Herbert Smith, which as far as anyone can tell is about what people in the Post Office, its Board and people in government knew about the cover up. The Post Office is currently fighting very hard to keep this secret, despite the ICO having ruled that the information should be provided.
For those who aren't on top of the detail there was a Swift Review in 2016 which pointed out that the PO's prosecutions were sub-optimal and there were likely miscarriages of justice. The response from the then General Counsel, Jane McLeod, who has since gone to Australia and refused to answer questions in the inquiry, was to hide the review - wrongly claiming that it was legally privileged. Remember it took another 3 years before the Fraser judgment blew the scandal open.
There are very strong suspicions that quite a lot of senior people in government knew of the cover up, that this is what is covered in this Project Brisbane report and that the Post Office and government are still trying to cover up the cover up.
One reason why I feel so strongly about this case is that the professionals who misbehaved here - to the extent of criminal behaviour IMO - were lawyers and investigators. My profession. My speciality. They have disgraced my profession. They should be in prison and/or stripped of their qualifications.
On some of the key points in the Blair Essay as mentioned by Shipman.
welfare spending is too high and is throwing good people on the scrapheap- I don't understand.
defence spending is too low - I don't agree. I think the "threat" from Russia is being overstated to create a climate in which increased defence spending (especially simultaenous with cuts in welfare) can be sold. Yes, we can move a little higher but whan I see 5% of GDP being mentioned, no, not sustainable.
the triple lock is unsustainable yes but as we all know pensioners vote and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. It can be sold within the context of a general belt tightening.
without cheap energy we cannot exploit the AI revolution - we can do a lot with cheap energy but from where is that cheap energy coming? I'd argue if we could get back to the kind of energy pricing we enjoyed in the early 2000s we'd see economic growth resume. I'd also question the amount of energy wr use to store all the data we are creating and look at data de-carbonisation.
we should be investing in EVERY form of energy: renewables, nuclear and the North Sea - quite right.
migration needs to be controlled to boost social cohesion and because the boats look like a huge failure of the state - like everyone else, he has no answer to the "small boats" but at least he isn't talking about wide scale deportation.
any new relationship with the EU will be imposed on us until we are stronger and cannot involve the closeness some desire without freedom of movement - I'm afraid those who want us to Rejoin miss this point. FoM and the Single Currency have never been popular and until they become so we will be outside the EU.
Current polling shows strong support for FoM.
Citation required. I rather suspect you will not see "strong support for FoM" in Makerfield.
Unless the "movement" is "fuck off back where you came from".
Also, what does "special access" mean? We have special access. That's what an FTA is. And if they mean "single market membership" why not just say so? And I'm not sure what the "travel" part is supposed to mean - that also exists already.
I suppose on a very narrow plank you could claim Switzerland, but that's not available anyway.
Indeed. It's a question designed to maximise a positive response and one we shouldn't take seriously.
Murrell purchased 7 kettles between Aug 2020 and Nov 2020. Including purchasing 2 on the same day.
I think the guy might have some weird shopping issue, like the rich celebs that have been caught shoplifting. Again, did Nicola never wonder why she couldn't move for the 3 coffee machines and 7 kettles clogging up the kitchen?
@ShippersUnbound Further to Blair. Literally every honest sensible person in all the main parties privately agrees with all these propositions:
- welfare spending is too high and is throwing good people on the scrapheap - defence spending is too low - the triple lock is unsustainable - without cheap energy we cannot exploit the AI revolution - we should be investing in EVERY form of energy: renewables, nuclear and the North Sea - migration needs to be controlled to boost social cohesion and because the boats look like a huge failure of the state - any new relationship with the EU will be imposed on us until we are stronger and cannot involve the closeness some desire without freedom of movement - we are deeply embedded with America in ways which the public does not understand and cannot be told and however joyous it makes us feel to hate Trump, disengagement at the deep state level is not only wholly unrealistic but also undesirable - Whitehall needs a total overhaul so specific project expertise and political appointees can be brought in quickly
Blair basically says all that.
The one thing he doesn’t say and which the same group of people agree on is this and it’s something Blair left behind:
I have not posted much recently, probably because there is so much division and discourse I just cannot see a solution
However, Blair reminds me why I voted for him twice and everything he highlights is spot on
Instead of engaging with his thoughts we have labour going into a tailspin over Irag and Blair's millions/billions whilst seeking to drift to the left that will result in simply more failure
Blair at least has opened a debate that is long overdue and maybe listen to the message rather than deflect by raising Blair's failures as an excuse to dismiss his opinions
The problem with the boats is that although they are highly visible it restricts the number who arrive here and apply for asylum.
Attach that to the fact that most (well over 50%) of those applying will get asylum and every other option is worse because while it would remove the visible boats it will increase the total number of people arriving with valid claims.
So there is no fix without changing global asylum rules and while most of Europe agree the practical side is rather difficult
Somebody made the point yesterday (I think) that we've not had figures (guesstimates?) for illegal crossings for some time. Of course, it's ben a bit breezy (here anyway) so that might have put people off.
And that's the political problem that any government will have.
There's a hysteresis in public understanding of the issue- when the boats were utterly out of control, it was (rightly) a story. Long runs of days when nobody arrives on boats is not a story. So people reasonably assume that nothing has changed.
I don't know what anyone could do about that.
The problem is there is nothing any Government can do - all other options remove the boats but will result in more asylum seekers arriving with valid claims.
As I said yesterday the fix is to publicly appoint Farage to be in charge of the issue give him a £1bn a year and watch him fail
The flaw in this logic is that Farage will say (quite correctly) to send them all to Rwanda or similar, with zero prospect of ever being allowed into the UK, even if their asylum claim is unheld, and then they will stop coming. And he is of course correct, and this is what should happen - there is no other viable way to solve the boats*.
The problem is that the Refuge Convention, the Human Right Act, the ECHR etc. prevent this happening. And Farage will say - no problem. Extract ourselves from these institutions, then send people off to Rwanda (other holiday destinations are undoubtedly available). And then the government is stumped, because it is not willing to do this.
*there are two other ways which will also stop the boats, but neither is remotely sensible or viable. One is to sink them all and leave the passengers to drown. One such sinking and a loudly declared intention to do it to every single boat would stop the boats instantly, but obviously such a policy would be beyond morally bankrupt. The other is to provide legal routes which are easier than getting in on a boat. This sounds superficially appealing, but is a complete non-starter as half the third world would apply to come in the first week, and as soon as we tried to toughen the entry requirements up a bit the boats would restart.
Murrell purchased 7 kettles between Aug 2020 and Nov 2020. Including purchasing 2 on the same day.
I think the guy might have some weird shopping issue, like the rich celebs that have been caught shoplifting. Again, did Nicola never wonder why she couldn't move for the 3 coffee machines and 7 kettles clogging up the kitchen?
A charity run by the Green Party’s Makerfield by-election candidate called on Britain’s farming sector to be “decolonised” and shared guidance suggesting perfectionism and a sense of urgency were examples of “white supremacy culture”
Murrell purchased 7 kettles between Aug 2020 and Nov 2020. Including purchasing 2 on the same day.
I think the guy might have some weird shopping issue, like the rich celebs that have been caught shoplifting. Again, did Nicola never wonder why she couldn't move for the 3 coffee machines and 7 kettles clogging up the kitchen?
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The triple lock is indeed unsustainable in the long term but right now, abolition would create a lot of fuss for no benefit.
Good old "I am all right Jack" rob those poor pensioners, knob
If pensioners are poor it's because they haven't put away enough for their retirement. Often it's been my home is my pension, but when the cliff edge of retirement arrives, they decline to move. Instead they look for more handouts.
The current State Pension is particularly poor value and is at or less than subsistence level. Failing to top that up is where most have gone wrong.
The Blair Essay is a lot better than the headlines about it would suggest.
For example, the headlines say, "Blair tells Labour to ditch net zero and drill in the North Sea," but what the essay actually says is, "We must prioritise cheaper energy and electrification over net zero and use what is left of our North Sea oil and gas resources."
"Electrification" is the process of replacing fossil fuels with renewable electricity. It's the principle means by which net zero is delivered. The continued technological development of renewables makes them the cheap energy option in an age of geopolitical instability and fossil fuel supply disruption.
I wouldn't see this as abandoning net zero, but choosing a carrot-led approach - of concentrating on better technology to replace fossil fuels - rather than a stick-reliant approach - of restricting fossil fuel use to force adoption of other technologies. This is a long way from Trump's ideological opposition to renewables, for example.
I think Blair's Essay is weakest on Trump. He is in denial of Trump's weakness in relation to, and adulation of, Putin, Xi and other dictators, and the stark consequences this has for democracies. But I think that, as a starting point for a serious discussion about Britain's future it has a lot of merit, and is a more useful contribution than anything that has emerged from Labour's leadership wrangling, the Tories, or the Lib Dems.
Good on you for actually reading it.
Interesting and, fair play, very poorly reported.
It should be remembered that reportedly Brown ran domestic policy even when Blair was PM.
Prevention rather than treatment, applies further than the health service it was also the raison d'etre of Surestart, both should be used. It is also independent of the public/private provision debate.
Net Zero is about cheaper, more reliable energy, it was also about energy efficiency, something that appears to be ignored and that will be even more important as AI guzzles energy.
Less rather than more regulation of the tech industry seems very dangerous given where they've gone "self-regulated" before governments realized.
Planning reform is happening, an unneeded plug for Euan, re-industrialisation of the North (surely just jobs?), reform the triple lock.. the issues and aims are identified, but there's no clear case made for his solutions of more private sector involvement and reduced regulation.
I'd dispute that Trump sets a consistent direction of travel, rather that he careers all over the place causing chaos. If there is no consistent direction how can any foreign government unquestioningly ally with the USA? One moment we would be pressurising our other allies to capitulate over ceding Greenland, the next he's flitted to regime change in central America or interfering in a European country's elections, leaving the UK hanging in the breeze and friendless.
The judge in the Murrell case has done the media a massive favour by allowing the release of the items on the list following the guilty plea. The drip feeding into the news is damaging for those who were senior management at the time.
Was Swinney's tactic to introduce a new referendum into the debate yesterday a deliberate ploy to avoid the attention from the scandal? That now looks like its backfired, as he held senior office in the SNP for much of Murrell's tenure. He also was boss when he was appointed to the Chief Exec post. As expected a lot of the pilfering has been done much later in Murrell's term of office, with virtually nothing of any value before 2015. As we hit 2016, it increases, as he starts to realise what he can get away with, culminating in a bonanza spending spree around 2020 when a whole menagerie of bizarre, obscure and unnecessary items start to appear at Chez Pete.
I note from one commentator much of the embezzlement actually takes place after Wings, Clerkin etc start to become curious of the accounts in early 2020. There is a lot later on in that year, and after. This points more towards the culture of secrecy within the SNP NEC which Joanna Cherry alludes to, and rather than go out and scrutinise what is happening with the accounts, it looks very like Sturgeon doubles down and tries to shut down all debate. She has a habit of refusing to discuss things which are not on her terms.
I can't currently see a betting market for the next SNP leader but I would definitely suggest that John Swinney will not see out the full term in parliament. My money right now would go on Stephen Flynn, who is not of the old dog generation embroiled in all this, he's competent and held his own well in the House of Commons. Mairi McAllan for me still lacks enough senior experience to take on the top job and I don't think party members would be as keen to back her over Flynn. She is also fairly close to camp Sturgeon.
Flynn almost certainly has his eye on the top job, but maybe didn't expect for things to come to the fore as quick as they did. The number and manner of Sturgeon's press releases this week as the media trawl through the contents of the list suggests this story has a long way to run.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
I have a Freedom Pass in London which enables me to travel freely on buses, tubes and light railways within the M25. I'd pay at least £100 pa for that. It's worth more than £2 a week. If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
Easy - the cost of an annual all zones pass is £3264 but that allows travel before 9:30 so you'd have to make allowance for that - pro-rating it for the difference between Off-Peak and Peak daily caps would make it £2296. Or charge the equivalent cost of the journeys you did make, if less. It's all recorded and presumably could be visible to you (maybe it is already, not being old enough I don't know but I can see all my journeys and the cost for each).
Out in the sticks where it's just buses, £2 a pop.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
What sort of spending of the proceeds of embezzlement would it take to impress you?
Capability Brown style gardens - bloody acres and acres of them, arboretums, wildlife meadows stretching as far as the eye could see, elegant houses in Campania, race horses, a farm. Spending money on conserving and restoring public buildings. A proper public library. Sponsorship of a music festival & holidays for carers etc.,.
If I had oodles and oodles and oodles of money, that's where the money would go. Not on tasteless Lalique pepper pots. Lalique are just going to have to withdraw those now. Murrell has single-handedly trashed their value.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
£400 000 over 12 years, Murrell could have boosted his not particularly generous salary of ca £95K by £30K and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Instead of which, he will go to prison for several years. It's actually sad.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
£400 000 over 12 years, Murrell could have boosted his not particularly generous salary of ca £95K by £30K and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Instead of which, he will go to prison for several years. It's actually sad.
Aren’t you forgetting tax? Boosting it by £60k may have raised some eyebrows.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
£400 000 over 12 years, Murrell could have boosted his not particularly generous salary of ca £95K by £30K and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Instead of which, he will go to prison for several years. It's actually sad.
And very very stupid. But then in my experience most fraudsters are often stupid.
Murrell purchased 7 kettles between Aug 2020 and Nov 2020. Including purchasing 2 on the same day.
I think the guy might have some weird shopping issue, like the rich celebs that have been caught shoplifting. Again, did Nicola never wonder why she couldn't move for the 3 coffee machines and 7 kettles clogging up the kitchen?
Yes that's what it boils down to. Trouble brewing for Nicola?
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
I have a Freedom Pass in London which enables me to travel freely on buses, tubes and light railways within the M25. I'd pay at least £100 pa for that. It's worth more than £2 a week. If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
Easy - the cost of an annual all zones pass is £3264 but that allows travel before 9:30 so you'd have to make allowance for that - pro-rating it for the difference between Off-Peak and Peak daily caps would make it £2296. Or charge the equivalent cost of the journeys you did make, if less. It's all recorded and presumably could be visible to you (maybe it is already, not being old enough I don't know but I can see all my journeys and the cost for each).
Out in the sticks where it's just buses, £2 a pop.
Buses are now £3 max (£1.75 flat rate in London)
I happily paid £70 for a three year Senior Railcard, but I presume the rail companies regard that as a commercial transaction as it encourages the use of mostly off-peak services
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
I have a Freedom Pass in London which enables me to travel freely on buses, tubes and light railways within the M25. I'd pay at least £100 pa for that. It's worth more than £2 a week. If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
The age for getting it should be returned to state pension age. The way Johnson dropped the age to sixty and left the Boroughs to pick up the massive tab was utterly disgraceful,
Particularly as people negotiate with their employers to start later so they can travel to work for free
Murrell purchased 7 kettles between Aug 2020 and Nov 2020. Including purchasing 2 on the same day.
I think the guy might have some weird shopping issue, like the rich celebs that have been caught shoplifting. Again, did Nicola never wonder why she couldn't move for the 3 coffee machines and 7 kettles clogging up the kitchen?
Yes that's what it boils down to. Trouble brewing for Nicola?
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
£400 000 over 12 years, Murrell could have boosted his not particularly generous salary of ca £95K by £30K and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Instead of which, he will go to prison for several years. It's actually sad.
Aren’t you forgetting tax? Boosting it by £60k may have raised some eyebrows.
Really? I remember when I worked in HR in a Quango there was a circle jerk of managers all recommending higher salaries for each other. (It benefited me too as it happened). As long as the HR and Finance mangers got their bounce too, it was signed off. All in the name of "market rates" despite the fact that everyone had happily applied for the job at the old rate.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
£400 000 over 12 years, Murrell could have boosted his not particularly generous salary of ca £95K by £30K and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Instead of which, he will go to prison for several years. It's actually sad.
Aren’t you forgetting tax? Boosting it by £60k may have raised some eyebrows.
Really? I remember when I worked in HR in a Quango there was a circle jerk of managers all recommending higher salaries for each other. (It benefited me too as it happened). As long as the HR and Finance mangers got their bounce too, it was signed off. All in the name of "market rates" despite the fact that everyone had happily applied for the job at the old rate.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
What sort of spending of the proceeds of embezzlement would it take to impress you?
Capability Brown style gardens - bloody acres and acres of them, arboretums, wildlife meadows stretching as far as the eye could see, elegant houses in Campania, race horses, a farm. Spending money on conserving and restoring public buildings. A proper public library. Sponsorship of a music festival & holidays for carers etc.,.
If I had oodles and oodles and oodles of money, that's where the money would go. Not on tasteless Lalique pepper pots. Lalique are just going to have to withdraw those now. Murrell has single-handedly trashed their value.
I don't see that.
Is this not a "Feuilles" design first introduced in 1924?
My favourite bit of the Tony Blair essay his views on how to help "the north of the country". A big improvement from his old "education, education, education" conviction. Education now comes second. Infrastructure is first. That is an important lesson learned. Good. https://x.com/thomasforth/status/2059546481694998910
You get the feeling that if Blair had started HS2 in 1997 it would have been up and running by the time he left Downing Street in 2007.He was good at making things happen.
You asked on a previous thread what op-ed stands for. It originally stood for "opposite the editorial" and referred to an opinion piece of text opposite the editorial page, written by a commentator instead of the editorial board. I think the term has now expanded to cover opinion pieces anywhere in the newspaper
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
What sort of spending of the proceeds of embezzlement would it take to impress you?
Capability Brown style gardens - bloody acres and acres of them, arboretums, wildlife meadows stretching as far as the eye could see, elegant houses in Campania, race horses, a farm. Spending money on conserving and restoring public buildings. A proper public library. Sponsorship of a music festival & holidays for carers etc.,.
If I had oodles and oodles and oodles of money, that's where the money would go. Not on tasteless Lalique pepper pots. Lalique are just going to have to withdraw those now. Murrell has single-handedly trashed their value.
That sounds more like Trump scale theft. Though Trump has considerably less taste than Murrell.
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
£400 000 over 12 years, Murrell could have boosted his not particularly generous salary of ca £95K by £30K and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Instead of which, he will go to prison for several years. It's actually sad.
And very very stupid. But then in my experience most fraudsters are often stupid.
How are you estimating the ratio of caught fraudsters, to got-away-with-it-Scot-free fraudsters?
(Our heathen friends north of the border, please excuse the capital S, which the iPad gratuitously added.)
Having read Blair's essay only once one thing that stood out was that he suggests that the Labour government should have increased VAT instead of employers NI. This repeats the Geoffrey Howe mistake in the 1980s and would kick start price inflation. Arguably NI was wrong too -as it has led to increased inflation and fewer jobs - though less immediately than a VAT increase.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
I have a Freedom Pass in London which enables me to travel freely on buses, tubes and light railways within the M25. I'd pay at least £100 pa for that. It's worth more than £2 a week. If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
Easy - the cost of an annual all zones pass is £3264 but that allows travel before 9:30 so you'd have to make allowance for that - pro-rating it for the difference between Off-Peak and Peak daily caps would make it £2296. Or charge the equivalent cost of the journeys you did make, if less. It's all recorded and presumably could be visible to you (maybe it is already, not being old enough I don't know but I can see all my journeys and the cost for each).
Out in the sticks where it's just buses, £2 a pop.
Buses are now £3 max (£1.75 flat rate in London)
I happily paid £70 for a three year Senior Railcard, but I presume the rail companies regard that as a commercial transaction as it encourages the use of mostly off-peak services
I think that's fair, it's not a government benefit and other railcards are available for students, families etc.
Actually now I've been looking into it I realise that in a couple of years time I will get effectively a 50% reduction in my commuting costs, which is bonkers. Why should I get a discount now at the point in my life when my earnings are highest and my outgoings lowest? (or would be if I hadn't had to remortgage following divorce). It would have been much more useful to get it when I had two young children and was struggling to stretch a rather lower salary to the end the month.
I think free travel for pensioners should be abolished, and replaced by free travel for adults in receipt of Child Benefit.
"But for now, a detached house, a conservatory and a motorhome is our modest Scottish dream."
If SNP Central Casting had issued a brief for "Ms Middle Scotland", they would have come up with Nicola Sturgeon. This was a big part of her phenomenal success as a politician.
My strongly held politics belief is that people vote for the person in who is most like their boss. If you work in a public sector institution or large business in Scotland your team leader will be Nicola Sturgeon.
The absence of politicians like your boss is part of the reason why politics is broken at the moment, in my view. Theresa May was probably the last one at the UK level. David Cameron was definitely boss like in a David Brent way. He was also a very successful politician despite his rather obvious lack of direction.
Though Labour plus Greens plus LDs makes 47 and the 2 Burnham hypothetical polls have Labour then taking the lead. Fortunately for Burnham too Restore are fighting Reform more than him and the Tories are also putting up a candidate and the Reform candidate now turns out to have made some relatively pro Putin comments
And the Labour and LibDem votes are increasingly sensibly distributed for maximising their seat haul, with the Greens less so but only threatening to take Labour inner city seats rather than deliver that many to the right. Whereas the Tory and Reform votes are still nicely correlated.
I've been thinking (I know, risky!) about the overall big picture fptp landscape (since we can assume the system won't change for the next GE):
The fact is that the LDs and the Cons together in their heartlands which they still have (the former expanded last time at the expense of the latter) will get at least 180 seats.
That leaves 470 seats of which approx 360 are in England. So assuming PC and SNP perform to par in their own spaces, Labour or Reform have to be winning around 300 of those 360 seats to be in with a chance of an overall majority.
Reform can't do that, no way, and neither can Labour unless Reform fall away. But if Reform fall away the benefit to Labour will be limited by the resulting boost to the Cons. Their joint tally with the LDs will be more like 250 say. So Labour still can't get a majority.
Then there's the Greens. They will win some seats, every one of which comes off the total for the other parties, pushing that overall majority even further into out-of-reach territory.
Conclusion: it's hardcoded for NOM and the available 1.7 looks like value.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
OK That's a reasonable argument. But it needs to be coupled with having NI on pensions (or merging NI with income tax) and taxing pension benefits such as WFA and free travel. That way poorer pensioners are protected but wealthier ones pay their way.
I agree on merging NI with pension, and taxing benefits such as wfa. Not sure how you would do travel taxing.
I have a Freedom Pass in London which enables me to travel freely on buses, tubes and light railways within the M25. I'd pay at least £100 pa for that. It's worth more than £2 a week. If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
Easy - the cost of an annual all zones pass is £3264 but that allows travel before 9:30 so you'd have to make allowance for that - pro-rating it for the difference between Off-Peak and Peak daily caps would make it £2296. Or charge the equivalent cost of the journeys you did make, if less. It's all recorded and presumably could be visible to you (maybe it is already, not being old enough I don't know but I can see all my journeys and the cost for each).
Out in the sticks where it's just buses, £2 a pop.
Buses are now £3 max (£1.75 flat rate in London)
I happily paid £70 for a three year Senior Railcard, but I presume the rail companies regard that as a commercial transaction as it encourages the use of mostly off-peak services
I think that's fair, it's not a government benefit and other railcards are available for students, families etc.
Actually now I've been looking into it I realise that in a couple of years time I will get effectively a 50% reduction in my commuting costs, which is bonkers. Why should I get a discount now at the point in my life when my earnings are highest and my outgoings lowest? (or would be if I hadn't had to remortgage following divorce). It would have been much more useful to get it when I had two young children and was struggling to stretch a rather lower salary to the end the month.
I think free travel for pensioners should be abolished, and replaced by free travel for adults in receipt of Child Benefit.
Someone should take a case under age discrimination legislation. And get the whole plethora of OAP freebies and discounts abolished as contrary to the Equalities Act.
The government is spending more money on lawyers for the Post Office than on the criminal investigation. One reason almost certainly relates to Project Brisbane - a report prepared by the Post Office's lawyers, Herbert Smith, which as far as anyone can tell is about what people in the Post Office, its Board and people in government knew about the cover up. The Post Office is currently fighting very hard to keep this secret, despite the ICO having ruled that the information should be provided.
For those who aren't on top of the detail there was a Swift Review in 2016 which pointed out that the PO's prosecutions were sub-optimal and there were likely miscarriages of justice. The response from the then General Counsel, Jane McLeod, who has since gone to Australia and refused to answer questions in the inquiry, was to hide the review - wrongly claiming that it was legally privileged. Remember it took another 3 years before the Fraser judgment blew the scandal open.
There are very strong suspicions that quite a lot of senior people in government knew of the cover up, that this is what is covered in this Project Brisbane report and that the Post Office and government are still trying to cover up the cover up.
One reason why I feel so strongly about this case is that the professionals who misbehaved here - to the extent of criminal behaviour IMO - were lawyers and investigators. My profession. My speciality. They have disgraced my profession. They should be in prison and/or stripped of their qualifications.
At this rate many of the guilty parties won't be around any longer by the time any report is finally published.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Apart from the fraud, there is something very odd about his spending. It is simultaneously excessive, tasteless and pathetically banal.
What sort of spending of the proceeds of embezzlement would it take to impress you?
Capability Brown style gardens - bloody acres and acres of them, arboretums, wildlife meadows stretching as far as the eye could see, elegant houses in Campania, race horses, a farm. Spending money on conserving and restoring public buildings. A proper public library. Sponsorship of a music festival & holidays for carers etc.,.
If I had oodles and oodles and oodles of money, that's where the money would go. Not on tasteless Lalique pepper pots. Lalique are just going to have to withdraw those now. Murrell has single-handedly trashed their value.
That sounds more like Trump scale theft. Though Trump has considerably less taste than Murrell.
What they have in common is a love of bling, and overpriced tat. That seems to be the favoured aesthetic, these days, among corrupt leaders and autocrats.
I could forgive a corrupt leader/autocrat who spent the proceeds of extortion in the manner @Cyclefree suggests. Since she mentions Campania, I went on holiday there in January, and visited the Royal Palace in Naples, and was struck by the wonderful art in the place. The Kings of the Two Sicilies, and Spanish Viceroys, might have wrung the money to build it from the bleeding lips of the peasants, but at least they produced something that gives pleasure to thousands, centuries down the line.
Whereas today's autocrats give us rubbish like Ceauscescu's 1,200 room palace that nobody knows what do do with, Gadaffi's golden statue of his daughter as a mermaid, and Mar A Largo.
Was in Korea this week for business and learned from colleagues about this wild trend: young Koreans in their 20s and 30s are aggressively taking out loans, especially margin loans from brokerages and credit loans from banks to invest in the surging stock market.. https://x.com/rtodi/status/2059619186704331261
Though Labour plus Greens plus LDs makes 47 and the 2 Burnham hypothetical polls have Labour then taking the lead. Fortunately for Burnham too Restore are fighting Reform more than him and the Tories are also putting up a candidate and the Reform candidate now turns out to have made some relatively pro Putin comments
And the Labour and LibDem votes are increasingly sensibly distributed for maximising their seat haul, with the Greens less so but only threatening to take Labour inner city seats rather than deliver that many to the right. Whereas the Tory and Reform votes are still nicely correlated.
I've been thinking (I know, risky!) about the overall big picture fptp landscape (since we can assume the system won't change for the next GE):
The fact is that the LDs and the Cons together in their heartlands which they still have (the former expanded last time at the expense of the latter) will get at least 180 seats.
That leaves 470 seats of which approx 360 are in England. So assuming PC and SNP perform to par in their own spaces, Labour or Reform have to be winning around 300 of those 360 seats to be in with a chance of an overall majority.
Reform can't do that, no way, and neither can Labour unless Reform fall away. But if Reform fall away the benefit to Labour will be limited by the resulting boost to the Cons. Their joint tally with the LDs will be more like 250 say. So Labour still can't get a majority.
Then there's the Greens. They will win some seats, every one of which comes off the total for the other parties, pushing that overall majority even further into out-of-reach territory.
Conclusion: it's hardcoded for NOM and the available 1.7 looks like value.
On current polling, Reform absolutely can do that.
You're absolutely right that Labour can't, though. So 50%; must do better.
Was in Korea this week for business and learned from colleagues about this wild trend: young Koreans in their 20s and 30s are aggressively taking out loans, especially margin loans from brokerages and credit loans from banks to invest in the surging stock market.. https://x.com/rtodi/status/2059619186704331261
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Surely the people doing best out of 'the system' are the wealthy.
Though Labour plus Greens plus LDs makes 47 and the 2 Burnham hypothetical polls have Labour then taking the lead. Fortunately for Burnham too Restore are fighting Reform more than him and the Tories are also putting up a candidate and the Reform candidate now turns out to have made some relatively pro Putin comments
And the Labour and LibDem votes are increasingly sensibly distributed for maximising their seat haul, with the Greens less so but only threatening to take Labour inner city seats rather than deliver that many to the right. Whereas the Tory and Reform votes are still nicely correlated.
I've been thinking (I know, risky!) about the overall big picture fptp landscape (since we can assume the system won't change for the next GE):
The fact is that the LDs and the Cons together in their heartlands which they still have (the former expanded last time at the expense of the latter) will get at least 180 seats.
That leaves 470 seats of which approx 360 are in England. So assuming PC and SNP perform to par in their own spaces, Labour or Reform have to be winning around 300 of those 360 seats to be in with a chance of an overall majority.
Reform can't do that, no way, and neither can Labour unless Reform fall away. But if Reform fall away the benefit to Labour will be limited by the resulting boost to the Cons. Their joint tally with the LDs will be more like 250 say. So Labour still can't get a majority.
Then there's the Greens. They will win some seats, every one of which comes off the total for the other parties, pushing that overall majority even further into out-of-reach territory.
Conclusion: it's hardcoded for NOM and the available 1.7 looks like value.
On current polling, Reform absolutely can do that.
You're absolutely right that Labour can't, though. So 50%; must do better.
I'm not just baxtering current polls. I'm doing value added.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Surely the people doing best out of 'the system' are the wealthy.
The wealthy have this fantasy they can dismantle the welfare state without being murdered in their beds. They can try but I don't fancy their chances.
Though Labour plus Greens plus LDs makes 47 and the 2 Burnham hypothetical polls have Labour then taking the lead. Fortunately for Burnham too Restore are fighting Reform more than him and the Tories are also putting up a candidate and the Reform candidate now turns out to have made some relatively pro Putin comments
And the Labour and LibDem votes are increasingly sensibly distributed for maximising their seat haul, with the Greens less so but only threatening to take Labour inner city seats rather than deliver that many to the right. Whereas the Tory and Reform votes are still nicely correlated.
I've been thinking (I know, risky!) about the overall big picture fptp landscape (since we can assume the system won't change for the next GE):
The fact is that the LDs and the Cons together in their heartlands which they still have (the former expanded last time at the expense of the latter) will get at least 180 seats.
That leaves 470 seats of which approx 360 are in England. So assuming PC and SNP perform to par in their own spaces, Labour or Reform have to be winning around 300 of those 360 seats to be in with a chance of an overall majority.
Reform can't do that, no way, and neither can Labour unless Reform fall away. But if Reform fall away the benefit to Labour will be limited by the resulting boost to the Cons. Their joint tally with the LDs will be more like 250 say. So Labour still can't get a majority.
Then there's the Greens. They will win some seats, every one of which comes off the total for the other parties, pushing that overall majority even further into out-of-reach territory.
Conclusion: it's hardcoded for NOM and the available 1.7 looks like value.
On current polling, Reform absolutely can do that.
You're absolutely right that Labour can't, though. So 50%; must do better.
I'm not just baxtering current polls. I'm doing value added.
Last time I looked up 'wishcasting' in the dictionary, it didn't describe it as value add.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Surely the people doing best out of 'the system' are the wealthy.
The wealthy have this fantasy they can dismantle the welfare state without being murdered in their beds. They can try but I don't fancy their chances.
The fools have this fantasy that wealth won't leave the shores if it is continually stolen by the state. They can keep dreaming, but I don't fancy their chances.
Many of my successful late 30s cohort without family are looking at moving elsewhere. Those with family are looking at the USA....
Though Labour plus Greens plus LDs makes 47 and the 2 Burnham hypothetical polls have Labour then taking the lead. Fortunately for Burnham too Restore are fighting Reform more than him and the Tories are also putting up a candidate and the Reform candidate now turns out to have made some relatively pro Putin comments
And the Labour and LibDem votes are increasingly sensibly distributed for maximising their seat haul, with the Greens less so but only threatening to take Labour inner city seats rather than deliver that many to the right. Whereas the Tory and Reform votes are still nicely correlated.
I've been thinking (I know, risky!) about the overall big picture fptp landscape (since we can assume the system won't change for the next GE):
The fact is that the LDs and the Cons together in their heartlands which they still have (the former expanded last time at the expense of the latter) will get at least 180 seats.
That leaves 470 seats of which approx 360 are in England. So assuming PC and SNP perform to par in their own spaces, Labour or Reform have to be winning around 300 of those 360 seats to be in with a chance of an overall majority.
Reform can't do that, no way, and neither can Labour unless Reform fall away. But if Reform fall away the benefit to Labour will be limited by the resulting boost to the Cons. Their joint tally with the LDs will be more like 250 say. So Labour still can't get a majority.
Then there's the Greens. They will win some seats, every one of which comes off the total for the other parties, pushing that overall majority even further into out-of-reach territory.
Conclusion: it's hardcoded for NOM and the available 1.7 looks like value.
On current polling, Reform absolutely can do that.
You're absolutely right that Labour can't, though. So 50%; must do better.
I'm not just baxtering current polls. I'm doing value added.
Last time I looked up 'wishcasting' in the dictionary, it didn't describe it as value add.
I have my betting hat on. I'm not so denuded of romance and excitement that a hung parliament features in my dreams.
Was in Korea this week for business and learned from colleagues about this wild trend: young Koreans in their 20s and 30s are aggressively taking out loans, especially margin loans from brokerages and credit loans from banks to invest in the surging stock market.. https://x.com/rtodi/status/2059619186704331261
Was in Korea this week for business and learned from colleagues about this wild trend: young Koreans in their 20s and 30s are aggressively taking out loans, especially margin loans from brokerages and credit loans from banks to invest in the surging stock market.. https://x.com/rtodi/status/2059619186704331261
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Surely the people doing best out of 'the system' are the wealthy.
The wealthy have this fantasy they can dismantle the welfare state without being murdered in their beds. They can try but I don't fancy their chances.
Entertainingly it could very well be cruelly betrayed Reform voters doing the murdering.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Surely the people doing best out of 'the system' are the wealthy.
The wealthy have this fantasy they can dismantle the welfare state without being murdered in their beds. They can try but I don't fancy their chances.
The people most resentful of those on welfare are those who work hard for an inferior standard of living.
A charity run by the Green Party’s Makerfield by-election candidate called on Britain’s farming sector to be “decolonised” and shared guidance suggesting perfectionism and a sense of urgency were examples of “white supremacy culture”
Was in Korea this week for business and learned from colleagues about this wild trend: young Koreans in their 20s and 30s are aggressively taking out loans, especially margin loans from brokerages and credit loans from banks to invest in the surging stock market.. https://x.com/rtodi/status/2059619186704331261
That will end well...
I went to school with a family that *made their money* in the 29 crash. The ancestor in question made a lot of money on executing sell orders. He’d bailed on the market itself near the peak.
The government is spending more money on lawyers for the Post Office than on the criminal investigation. One reason almost certainly relates to Project Brisbane - a report prepared by the Post Office's lawyers, Herbert Smith, which as far as anyone can tell is about what people in the Post Office, its Board and people in government knew about the cover up. The Post Office is currently fighting very hard to keep this secret, despite the ICO having ruled that the information should be provided.
For those who aren't on top of the detail there was a Swift Review in 2016 which pointed out that the PO's prosecutions were sub-optimal and there were likely miscarriages of justice. The response from the then General Counsel, Jane McLeod, who has since gone to Australia and refused to answer questions in the inquiry, was to hide the review - wrongly claiming that it was legally privileged. Remember it took another 3 years before the Fraser judgment blew the scandal open.
There are very strong suspicions that quite a lot of senior people in government knew of the cover up, that this is what is covered in this Project Brisbane report and that the Post Office and government are still trying to cover up the cover up.
One reason why I feel so strongly about this case is that the professionals who misbehaved here - to the extent of criminal behaviour IMO - were lawyers and investigators. My profession. My speciality. They have disgraced my profession. They should be in prison and/or stripped of their qualifications.
I'm wondering if that quite meets the case here.
I mean, take Andrew Parsons. He advised the PO to withhold paperwork because 'it cast grave doubt on their [the accused's] guilt.' Or, as we might also say, 'demonstrated that legally speaking they were not guilty.'
So he knew that his duty was to disclose this evidence and did not do so because it would lead to people being released that he wanted locked up, for reasons still unclear, but possibly not unconnected to the fact he boasted about 'getting 500+ people convicted for stealing money from their employers, a major government organisation.'
Now, sending him to prison for probably 2-3 years in real terms and disbarring him would be a good start, but would it solve the problem? Not really. It would not begin to compensate his victims for what they've suffered, and even though his firm have swerved bankruptcy in the recent Siem case the repeated ratnering of their brand in that and the Post Office saga have left them in shall we say politely a difficult position.
So let's be inventive.
He could be ordered to meet individually with every single one of his victims and their families and hear their stories and learn what he's done, and apologise, and offer to share whatever money he has among them before going to live in a hermitage.
Or he could chose the punishment meted out to the Foreign Secretary in Whoops Apocalypse - I.e. public crucifixion at Wembley Stadium.
The government is spending more money on lawyers for the Post Office than on the criminal investigation. One reason almost certainly relates to Project Brisbane - a report prepared by the Post Office's lawyers, Herbert Smith, which as far as anyone can tell is about what people in the Post Office, its Board and people in government knew about the cover up. The Post Office is currently fighting very hard to keep this secret, despite the ICO having ruled that the information should be provided.
For those who aren't on top of the detail there was a Swift Review in 2016 which pointed out that the PO's prosecutions were sub-optimal and there were likely miscarriages of justice. The response from the then General Counsel, Jane McLeod, who has since gone to Australia and refused to answer questions in the inquiry, was to hide the review - wrongly claiming that it was legally privileged. Remember it took another 3 years before the Fraser judgment blew the scandal open.
There are very strong suspicions that quite a lot of senior people in government knew of the cover up, that this is what is covered in this Project Brisbane report and that the Post Office and government are still trying to cover up the cover up.
One reason why I feel so strongly about this case is that the professionals who misbehaved here - to the extent of criminal behaviour IMO - were lawyers and investigators. My profession. My speciality. They have disgraced my profession. They should be in prison and/or stripped of their qualifications.
At this rate many of the guilty parties won't be around any longer by the time any report is finally published.
One might most think that was the object of the exercise.
Do we know if any of them are in a position to bomb Argentina?
Though Labour plus Greens plus LDs makes 47 and the 2 Burnham hypothetical polls have Labour then taking the lead. Fortunately for Burnham too Restore are fighting Reform more than him and the Tories are also putting up a candidate and the Reform candidate now turns out to have made some relatively pro Putin comments
And the Labour and LibDem votes are increasingly sensibly distributed for maximising their seat haul, with the Greens less so but only threatening to take Labour inner city seats rather than deliver that many to the right. Whereas the Tory and Reform votes are still nicely correlated.
I've been thinking (I know, risky!) about the overall big picture fptp landscape (since we can assume the system won't change for the next GE):
The fact is that the LDs and the Cons together in their heartlands which they still have (the former expanded last time at the expense of the latter) will get at least 180 seats.
That leaves 470 seats of which approx 360 are in England. So assuming PC and SNP perform to par in their own spaces, Labour or Reform have to be winning around 300 of those 360 seats to be in with a chance of an overall majority.
Reform can't do that, no way, and neither can Labour unless Reform fall away. But if Reform fall away the benefit to Labour will be limited by the resulting boost to the Cons. Their joint tally with the LDs will be more like 250 say. So Labour still can't get a majority.
Then there's the Greens. They will win some seats, every one of which comes off the total for the other parties, pushing that overall majority even further into out-of-reach territory.
Conclusion: it's hardcoded for NOM and the available 1.7 looks like value.
On current polling, Reform absolutely can do that.
You're absolutely right that Labour can't, though. So 50%; must do better.
I'm not just baxtering current polls. I'm doing value added.
Last time I looked up 'wishcasting' in the dictionary, it didn't describe it as value add.
I have my betting hat on. I'm not so denuded of romance and excitement that a hung parliament features in my dreams.
The government is spending more money on lawyers for the Post Office than on the criminal investigation. One reason almost certainly relates to Project Brisbane - a report prepared by the Post Office's lawyers, Herbert Smith, which as far as anyone can tell is about what people in the Post Office, its Board and people in government knew about the cover up. The Post Office is currently fighting very hard to keep this secret, despite the ICO having ruled that the information should be provided.
For those who aren't on top of the detail there was a Swift Review in 2016 which pointed out that the PO's prosecutions were sub-optimal and there were likely miscarriages of justice. The response from the then General Counsel, Jane McLeod, who has since gone to Australia and refused to answer questions in the inquiry, was to hide the review - wrongly claiming that it was legally privileged. Remember it took another 3 years before the Fraser judgment blew the scandal open.
There are very strong suspicions that quite a lot of senior people in government knew of the cover up, that this is what is covered in this Project Brisbane report and that the Post Office and government are still trying to cover up the cover up.
One reason why I feel so strongly about this case is that the professionals who misbehaved here - to the extent of criminal behaviour IMO - were lawyers and investigators. My profession. My speciality. They have disgraced my profession. They should be in prison and/or stripped of their qualifications.
At this rate many of the guilty parties won't be around any longer by the time any report is finally published.
One might most think that was the object of the exercise.
Do we know if any of them are in a position to bomb Argentina?
No need
30 years from now, the final report on the report on the report will end with
“While everyone mentioned in this report is guilty as sin, too much time has passed for prosecutions to be in the public interest. Lessons will be learned.”
The government is spending more money on lawyers for the Post Office than on the criminal investigation. One reason almost certainly relates to Project Brisbane - a report prepared by the Post Office's lawyers, Herbert Smith, which as far as anyone can tell is about what people in the Post Office, its Board and people in government knew about the cover up. The Post Office is currently fighting very hard to keep this secret, despite the ICO having ruled that the information should be provided.
For those who aren't on top of the detail there was a Swift Review in 2016 which pointed out that the PO's prosecutions were sub-optimal and there were likely miscarriages of justice. The response from the then General Counsel, Jane McLeod, who has since gone to Australia and refused to answer questions in the inquiry, was to hide the review - wrongly claiming that it was legally privileged. Remember it took another 3 years before the Fraser judgment blew the scandal open.
There are very strong suspicions that quite a lot of senior people in government knew of the cover up, that this is what is covered in this Project Brisbane report and that the Post Office and government are still trying to cover up the cover up.
One reason why I feel so strongly about this case is that the professionals who misbehaved here - to the extent of criminal behaviour IMO - were lawyers and investigators. My profession. My speciality. They have disgraced my profession. They should be in prison and/or stripped of their qualifications.
I'm wondering if that quite meets the case here.
I mean, take Andrew Parsons. He advised the PO to withhold paperwork because 'it cast grave doubt on their [the accused's] guilt.' Or, as we might also say, 'demonstrated that legally speaking they were not guilty.'
So he knew that his duty was to disclose this evidence and did not do so because it would lead to people being released that he wanted locked up, for reasons still unclear, but possibly not unconnected to the fact he boasted about 'getting 500+ people convicted for stealing money from their employers, a major government organisation.'
Now, sending him to prison for probably 2-3 years in real terms and disbarring him would be a good start, but would it solve the problem? Not really. It would not begin to compensate his victims for what they've suffered, and even though his firm have swerved bankruptcy in the recent Siem case the repeated ratnering of their brand in that and the Post Office saga have left them in shall we say politely a difficult position.
So let's be inventive.
He could be ordered to meet individually with every single one of his victims and their families and hear their stories and learn what he's done, and apologise, and offer to share whatever money he has among them before going to live in a hermitage.
Or he could chose the punishment meted out to the Foreign Secretary in Whoops Apocalypse - I.e. public crucifixion at Wembley Stadium.
That would be far neater.
Too quick
I think the Rockall Naval Base will need lots of construction workers. Say, about 10,000 as a start.
Not sure what size of teaspoon they will get, though.
Peter Mandelson’s associations with senior figures in China, Russia and Israel were among the concerns raised by the UK’s vetting agency when it concluded he should be denied clearance, multiple sources have told the Guardian.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Surely the people doing best out of 'the system' are the wealthy.
The wealthy have this fantasy they can dismantle the welfare state without being murdered in their beds. They can try but I don't fancy their chances.
The enlightened self-interest argument.
I think at the heart of the right wing mindset is the conflation of wealth creation with the wealthy. And of a person's tax paid with their net contribution to society.
I just don't see it like that. I think that’s very reductive and mainly serves as cod justification for high levels of inequality. IMO if you broaden opportunity (which trickledown is the opposite of) you'll get more people exploiting more of their potential, and more wealth will be both created and better distributed.
Biden's soundbite: build from the bottom up and the middle out, not from the top down. Very good, that, as soundbites go.
It is the triple lock that we must have to say Cameron made a truly appalling decision on.
And Labour not removing it is an abomination.
The combination of triple locking pensions and tripling student tuition fees was utterly malign.
I'm still staggered than Clegg and so many LibDems agreed to it.
So am I
On Triple Lock there was an interesting piece by Steve Webb in Telegraph a few days ago. He argued that now is not the time to ditch it because so many people now don't have anywhere near enough private pension savings since Final Salary has died a death. Lots of people have been auto-enrolled but at low rates and will take years to catch up and so in meantime need some form of Triple Lock seemed to be the argument.
Then taxes must rise further. TINA
Sure; how about a flat 30% rate for all. Incentivises entreprenership. Those with the broadest shoulders are already paying far too much tax. Perhaps time for the many to start funding the state rather than taking from it....
1. Most entrepreneurs I know don't earn much, so a 30% flat rate would penalise them, not incentivise them.
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
It is as simple as this, we have too many people not paying into the system but taking a lot out of it. And the vote is equal despite that.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
Surely the people doing best out of 'the system' are the wealthy.
The wealthy have this fantasy they can dismantle the welfare state without being murdered in their beds. They can try but I don't fancy their chances.
The people most resentful of those on welfare are those who work hard for an inferior standard of living.
"The people who work hard for an inferior standard of living..." Inferior to what?, to whom?
The people who work hard for a low standard of living nearly all are on welfare btw.
Murrell purchased 7 kettles between Aug 2020 and Nov 2020. Including purchasing 2 on the same day.
I think the guy might have some weird shopping issue, like the rich celebs that have been caught shoplifting. Again, did Nicola never wonder why she couldn't move for the 3 coffee machines and 7 kettles clogging up the kitchen?
How many did she see? Are we sure he doesn't have a self-storage unit where most of this stuff is hidden?
If it's compulsive shopping behaviour then he will likely feel a degree of shame about it and seek to hide it.
Comments
https://x.com/LBC/status/2059588423959134437
‘You’ve gone over the edge, you’re disgusting!’
James O’Brien reveals the exact moment he lost his respect for Tony Blair.
One of them told me why he spent it all on holidays/hookers/drugs/experiences/fine dining etc over assets.
When/if he was caught and he used it to buy assets then those could be seized but nobody could seize the memories.
I sort of appreciated the logic.
Gambling can be like that.
And sex.
And the ECML is a decent service so the need for HS2 is not obvious from round here
I suppose on a very narrow plank you could claim Switzerland, but that's not available anyway.
What matters is transitioning to clean power and ceasing to burn fossil fuels. Doing what is economically sensible and then using that money to invest in clean technologies is both economically and environmentally sound.
If the benefit was charged at £100 (alongside WFA) then, if I were not paying income tax, it would still be free. But it would cost me £40. Fair enough.
Google tells me I'm a bad man:
https://thinkscotland.org/2023/04/in-defence-of-nicola-sturgeons-choice-of-home/
Final, poetic line:
"But for now, a detached house, a conservatory and a motorhome is our modest Scottish dream."
One of the sharper points is his noting Blair's advocacy of unconditional support for Trump, versus the conditional/transactional recommendation for how we deal with the EU.
That's poor policy on it's own terms, but the you take into account the massive unpopularity of Trump in the UK (and especially with Labour voters), it's just cloud cuckoo land to expect any current UK government, let alone a Labour government, to adopt it.
No particular substance beyond that, though.
That wouldn't excuse the criminality, but explains the bizarre nature of the purchases.
hoperespect."Well, you have to respect that level of unfounded optimism, I guess..."
In all honesty I expect jail might be a bit of a relief for him, that's the end of that part of his life.
I meant his government's policy rather than his constituency.
The government is spending more money on lawyers for the Post Office than on the criminal investigation. One reason almost certainly relates to Project Brisbane - a report prepared by the Post Office's lawyers, Herbert Smith, which as far as anyone can tell is about what people in the Post Office, its Board and people in government knew about the cover up. The Post Office is currently fighting very hard to keep this secret, despite the ICO having ruled that the information should be provided.
For those who aren't on top of the detail there was a Swift Review in 2016 which pointed out that the PO's prosecutions were sub-optimal and there were likely miscarriages of justice. The response from the then General Counsel, Jane McLeod, who has since gone to Australia and refused to answer questions in the inquiry, was to hide the review - wrongly claiming that it was legally privileged. Remember it took another 3 years before the Fraser judgment blew the scandal open.
There are very strong suspicions that quite a lot of senior people in government knew of the cover up, that this is what is covered in this Project Brisbane report and that the Post Office and government are still trying to cover up the cover up.
One reason why I feel so strongly about this case is that the professionals who misbehaved here - to the extent of criminal behaviour IMO - were lawyers and investigators. My profession. My speciality. They have disgraced my profession. They should be in prison and/or stripped of their qualifications.
I think the guy might have some weird shopping issue, like the rich celebs that have been caught shoplifting. Again, did Nicola never wonder why she couldn't move for the 3 coffee machines and 7 kettles clogging up the kitchen?
The problem is that the Refuge Convention, the Human Right Act, the ECHR etc. prevent this happening. And Farage will say - no problem. Extract ourselves from these institutions, then send people off to Rwanda (other holiday destinations are undoubtedly available). And then the government is stumped, because it is not willing to do this.
*there are two other ways which will also stop the boats, but neither is remotely sensible or viable. One is to sink them all and leave the passengers to drown. One such sinking and a loudly declared intention to do it to every single boat would stop the boats instantly, but obviously such a policy would be beyond morally bankrupt. The other is to provide legal routes which are easier than getting in on a boat. This sounds superficially appealing, but is a complete non-starter as half the third world would apply to come in the first week, and as soon as we tried to toughen the entry requirements up a bit the boats would restart.
A charity run by the Green Party’s Makerfield by-election candidate called on Britain’s farming sector to be “decolonised” and shared guidance suggesting perfectionism and a sense of urgency were examples of “white supremacy culture”
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/greens-makerfield-election-sarah-wakefield-farming-decolonised-p680hwhvr
The current State Pension is particularly poor value and is at or less than subsistence level. Failing to top that up is where most have gone wrong.
It should be remembered that reportedly Brown ran domestic policy even when Blair was PM.
Prevention rather than treatment, applies further than the health service it was also the raison d'etre of Surestart, both should be used. It is also independent of the public/private provision debate.
Net Zero is about cheaper, more reliable energy, it was also about energy efficiency, something that appears to be ignored and that will be even more important as AI guzzles energy.
Less rather than more regulation of the tech industry seems very dangerous given where they've gone "self-regulated" before governments realized.
Planning reform is happening, an unneeded plug for Euan, re-industrialisation of the North (surely just jobs?), reform the triple lock.. the issues and aims are identified, but there's no clear case made for his solutions of more private sector involvement and reduced regulation.
I'd dispute that Trump sets a consistent direction of travel, rather that he careers all over the place causing chaos. If there is no consistent direction how can any foreign government unquestioningly ally with the USA? One moment we would be pressurising our other allies to capitulate over ceding Greenland, the next he's flitted to regime change in central America or interfering in a European country's elections, leaving the UK hanging in the breeze and friendless.
Was Swinney's tactic to introduce a new referendum into the debate yesterday a deliberate ploy to avoid the attention from the scandal? That now looks like its backfired, as he held senior office in the SNP for much of Murrell's tenure. He also was boss when he was appointed to the Chief Exec post. As expected a lot of the pilfering has been done much later in Murrell's term of office, with virtually nothing of any value before 2015. As we hit 2016, it increases, as he starts to realise what he can get away with, culminating in a bonanza spending spree around 2020 when a whole menagerie of bizarre, obscure and unnecessary items start to appear at Chez Pete.
I note from one commentator much of the embezzlement actually takes place after Wings, Clerkin etc start to become curious of the accounts in early 2020. There is a lot later on in that year, and after. This points more towards the culture of secrecy within the SNP NEC which Joanna Cherry alludes to, and rather than go out and scrutinise what is happening with the accounts, it looks very like Sturgeon doubles down and tries to shut down all debate. She has a habit of refusing to discuss things which are not on her terms.
I can't currently see a betting market for the next SNP leader but I would definitely suggest that John Swinney will not see out the full term in parliament. My money right now would go on Stephen Flynn, who is not of the old dog generation embroiled in all this, he's competent and held his own well in the House of Commons. Mairi McAllan for me still lacks enough senior experience to take on the top job and I don't think party members would be as keen to back her over Flynn. She is also fairly close to camp Sturgeon.
Flynn almost certainly has his eye on the top job, but maybe didn't expect for things to come to the fore as quick as they did. The number and manner of Sturgeon's press releases this week as the media trawl through the contents of the list suggests this story has a long way to run.
Out in the sticks where it's just buses, £2 a pop.
If I had oodles and oodles and oodles of money, that's where the money would go. Not on tasteless Lalique pepper pots. Lalique are just going to have to withdraw those now. Murrell has single-handedly trashed their value.
Trouble brewing for Nicola?
I happily paid £70 for a three year Senior Railcard, but I presume the rail companies regard that as a commercial transaction as it encourages the use of mostly off-peak services
Apart from Aldi curry sauces, of which I am working through the remaining 18 jars.
Is this not a "Feuilles" design first introduced in 1924?
2. 30% flat rate is hardly going to incentivise those not in work to seek work.
3. "Those with the broadest shoulders" made me chuckle. Paying say £400k in tax out of an income of £1m pa does not imply 'broad shoulders'; it implies someone who has £600k to spend every year. The people with broad shoulders are those working their arses off in low paid jobs to make ends meet and facing rents, food and energy bills that can only be met by relying on UC to supplement their income.
Other than that, a 30% flat rate is still a crap idea.
Though Trump has considerably less taste than Murrell.
(Our heathen friends north of the border, please excuse the capital S, which the iPad gratuitously added.)
Actually now I've been looking into it I realise that in a couple of years time I will get effectively a 50% reduction in my commuting costs, which is bonkers. Why should I get a discount now at the point in my life when my earnings are highest and my outgoings lowest? (or would be if I hadn't had to remortgage following divorce). It would have been much more useful to get it when I had two young children and was struggling to stretch a rather lower salary to the end the month.
I think free travel for pensioners should be abolished, and replaced by free travel for adults in receipt of Child Benefit.
My strongly held politics belief is that people vote for the person in who is most like their boss. If you work in a public sector institution or large business in Scotland your team leader will be Nicola Sturgeon.
The absence of politicians like your boss is part of the reason why politics is broken at the moment, in my view. Theresa May was probably the last one at the UK level. David Cameron was definitely boss like in a David Brent way. He was also a very successful politician despite his rather obvious lack of direction.
The fact is that the LDs and the Cons together in their heartlands which they still have (the former expanded last time at the expense of the latter) will get at least 180 seats.
That leaves 470 seats of which approx 360 are in England. So assuming PC and SNP perform to par in their own spaces, Labour or Reform have to be winning around 300 of those 360 seats to be in with a chance of an overall majority.
Reform can't do that, no way, and neither can Labour unless Reform fall away. But if Reform fall away the benefit to Labour will be limited by the resulting boost to the Cons. Their joint tally with the LDs will be more like 250 say. So Labour still can't get a majority.
Then there's the Greens. They will win some seats, every one of which comes off the total for the other parties, pushing that overall majority even further into out-of-reach territory.
Conclusion: it's hardcoded for NOM and the available 1.7 looks like value.
It is, in short, why welfarist democracy is doomed to fail. I'd rather overthrow the welfare reliance, than overthrow the democracy. Perhaps we should return to a pre WW2 size state. The next crash might be just the impetus required to do so....
I could forgive a corrupt leader/autocrat who spent the proceeds of extortion in the manner @Cyclefree suggests. Since she mentions Campania, I went on holiday there in January, and visited the Royal Palace in Naples, and was struck by the wonderful art in the place. The Kings of the Two Sicilies, and Spanish Viceroys, might have wrung the money to build it from the bleeding lips of the peasants, but at least they produced something that gives pleasure to thousands, centuries down the line.
Whereas today's autocrats give us rubbish like Ceauscescu's 1,200 room palace that nobody knows what do do with, Gadaffi's golden statue of his daughter as a mermaid, and Mar A Largo.
Was in Korea this week for business and learned from colleagues about this wild trend: young Koreans in their 20s and 30s are aggressively taking out loans, especially margin loans from brokerages and credit loans from banks to invest in the surging stock market..
https://x.com/rtodi/status/2059619186704331261
You're absolutely right that Labour can't, though. So 50%; must do better.
Many of my successful late 30s cohort without family are looking at moving elsewhere. Those with family are looking at the USA....
I mean, take Andrew Parsons. He advised the PO to withhold paperwork because 'it cast grave doubt on their [the accused's] guilt.' Or, as we might also say, 'demonstrated that legally speaking they were not guilty.'
So he knew that his duty was to disclose this evidence and did not do so because it would lead to people being released that he wanted locked up, for reasons still unclear, but possibly not unconnected to the fact he boasted about 'getting 500+ people convicted for stealing money from their employers, a major government organisation.'
Now, sending him to prison for probably 2-3 years in real terms and disbarring him would be a good start, but would it solve the problem? Not really. It would not begin to compensate his victims for what they've suffered, and even though his firm have swerved bankruptcy in the recent Siem case the repeated ratnering of their brand in that and the Post Office saga have left them in shall we say politely a difficult position.
So let's be inventive.
He could be ordered to meet individually with every single one of his victims and their families and hear their stories and learn what he's done, and apologise, and offer to share whatever money he has among them before going to live in a hermitage.
Or he could chose the punishment meted out to the Foreign Secretary in Whoops Apocalypse - I.e. public crucifixion at Wembley Stadium.
That would be far neater.
Do we know if any of them are in a position to bomb Argentina?
30 years from now, the final report on the report on the report will end with
“While everyone mentioned in this report is guilty as sin, too much time has passed for prosecutions to be in the public interest. Lessons will be learned.”
#NU10K
I think the Rockall Naval Base will need lots of construction workers. Say, about 10,000 as a start.
Not sure what size of teaspoon they will get, though.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/27/mandelson-vetting-warned-ties-senior-figures-china-russia-israel
I think at the heart of the right wing mindset is the conflation of wealth creation with the wealthy. And of a person's tax paid with their net contribution to society.
I just don't see it like that. I think that’s very reductive and mainly serves as cod justification for high levels of inequality. IMO if you broaden opportunity (which trickledown is the opposite of) you'll get more people exploiting more of their potential, and more wealth will be both created and better distributed.
Biden's soundbite: build from the bottom up and the middle out, not from the top down. Very good, that, as soundbites go.
The people who work hard for a low standard of living nearly all are on welfare btw.
If it's compulsive shopping behaviour then he will likely feel a degree of shame about it and seek to hide it.