They work brilliantly to keep the heat out of a house. They work equally well to keep the heat in. Plus effective in deterring burglars. And they also look nice.
And they don't push up your electricity bills or make that awful humming nose so many air con units do.
Underfloor heating... but switched to cooling. Most heat pumps can do this now.
The World Cup starts in two weeks. My memories of them go back to the glorious 1966, a moment life was never better than at age 11. Do I detect so far substantially less interest than usual this year, or am I living under a rock, or is the onslaught yet to come?
I've not seen much in the way of cheap World Cup tat in supermarkets yet.
For Deputy, Reform make a nomination, and there aren’t any other nominations. Clearly there’s been some discussion to avoid an impasse. One assumes the more experienced members think they can keep the inexperienced Reform members from being too troublesome, by letting them at least a little into the tent.
Trump says Iran "thought they were going to out wait me, you know, we'll out wait him, he's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms, look what happened last night, that was the prelude to the midterms."
Trump says Iran "thought they were going to out wait me, you know, we'll out wait him, he's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms, look what happened last night, that was the prelude to the midterms."
Trump has got himself to the Presidency twice but has been a disaster from GOP Congressional candidates in midterms when he has done so and that is likely to continue in November after the more electable establishment Cornyn lost the GOP Senate nomination in Texas to Paxton. If the Democrats win the Texas Senate race that could now be the seat that gives them control of the Senate
Where the particular issue of air conditioning is concerned, I at least had no idea there were any such laws until reading about it on here, so it may not be a big issue for voters.
The detail of most regulation is of no interest at all to the vast majority of voters. But the cumulative effects of bad regulation are of great political significance.
But how many voters even link the two things ?
Why should they? Most people are not expert in the large subject of governing medium sized countries really well. But it is a reasonable assumption (even if wrong) that those who invite our vote and support to govern the country include 'running stuff competently' as part of their platform, and that between them they know enough and can access enough expertise at our expense to be able to do it.
I'm not saying they should.
The point is that regulation isn't a big political issue, even when its effects are massive, and that contributes to the election of politicians who don't get it either.
Effective pragmatism is highly underrated politically (except in retrospect). That's a hard problem, and it's not a reasonable assumption that politicians will be effective pragmatists, unless more of us vote for them on that basis.
Fair points.
BTW a day or two back you mentioned about the way a 1979 Brahms recording was still the best around. Yes. But there is more, IMHO the Karajan recording of Rosenkavalier, 1956, is still the best, as is the Hollywood 1950 version of Schubert's string quintet.
The other week R3 also failed to make the remarkable young Korean virtuoso Lim Yunchan's* recording of Liszt's transcendental studies their top pick, going instead for Lazar Berman's more poetic account from 1963.
Trump says Iran "thought they were going to out wait me, you know, we'll out wait him, he's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms, look what happened last night, that was the prelude to the midterms."
Trump has got himself to the Presidency twice but has been a disaster from GOP Congressional candidates in midterms when he has done so and that is likely to continue in November after the more electable establishment Cornyn lost the GOP Senate nomination in Texas to Paxton. If the Democrats win the Texas Senate race that could now be the seat that gives them control of the Senate
The betting has however, I'm displeased to note, moved back a little towards the GOP recently.
So the IOWC council meeting is underway and straight off there’s a contest between the current Indy chair of the council and a nominee put forward by Reform. The existing chair seems to have been advised he has an interest and left the meeting - another example of officer overreach on the council (there’s nothing to stop members staying and voting for themselves) - whether or not the Reform nominee does similarly remains to be seen.
Not that anything I will say will come as any sort of surprise to anyone since I have now turned into the Scandals Speaking Clock. Whatever time of day or night it is in whatever year, we are never more than a few minutes away from both the last and the next scandal.
To help you out because of the heat since you don't live somewhere sensible like the Lakes.
So the IOWC council meeting is underway and straight off there’s a contest between the current Indy chair of the council and a nominee put forward by Reform. The existing chair seems to have been advised he has an interest and left the meeting - another example of officer overreach on the council (there’s nothing to stop members staying and voting for themselves) - whether or not the Reform nominee does similarly remains to be seen.
Where the particular issue of air conditioning is concerned, I at least had no idea there were any such laws until reading about it on here, so it may not be a big issue for voters.
The detail of most regulation is of no interest at all to the vast majority of voters. But the cumulative effects of bad regulation are of great political significance.
But how many voters even link the two things ?
Why should they? Most people are not expert in the large subject of governing medium sized countries really well. But it is a reasonable assumption (even if wrong) that those who invite our vote and support to govern the country include 'running stuff competently' as part of their platform, and that between them they know enough and can access enough expertise at our expense to be able to do it.
I'm not saying they should.
The point is that regulation isn't a big political issue, even when its effects are massive, and that contributes to the election of politicians who don't get it either.
Effective pragmatism is highly underrated politically (except in retrospect). That's a hard problem, and it's not a reasonable assumption that politicians will be effective pragmatists, unless more of us vote for them on that basis.
Fair points.
BTW a day or two back you mentioned about the way a 1979 Brahms recording was still the best around. Yes. But there is more, IMHO the Karajan recording of Rosenkavalier, 1956, is still the best, as is the Hollywood 1950 version of Schubert's string quintet.
The other week R3 also failed to make the remarkable young Korean virtuoso Lim Yunchan's* recording of Liszt's transcendental studies their top pick, going instead for Lazar Berman's more poetic account from 1963.
*It is nonetheless an astonishing live recording.
Crashing in down market, it struck me the other day that the approx 2 seconds in which Sam Cooke sings "Cupid, draw back your bow" in that sweetest and purest of voices, over the melody, can't actually be improved upon as 2 seconds of experience go.
It’s a bit late but we really need education about the risks.
----
Edit - blockquote fail I can't quite solve.
It's another thing we're going to have to get to grips with as the summers get insanely hotter.
Would be nice if we had leisure centres that could fling open their doors for cheap/free entry for youngsters for pools and ice rinks to cool down in a safer environment, except they're all closing down because they're too expensive to heat/freeze.
They work brilliantly to keep the heat out of a house. They work equally well to keep the heat in. Plus effective in deterring burglars. And they also look nice.
And they don't push up your electricity bills or make that awful humming nose so many air con units do.
Where the particular issue of air conditioning is concerned, I at least had no idea there were any such laws until reading about it on here, so it may not be a big issue for voters.
The detail of most regulation is of no interest at all to the vast majority of voters. But the cumulative effects of bad regulation are of great political significance.
But how many voters even link the two things ?
Why should they? Most people are not expert in the large subject of governing medium sized countries really well. But it is a reasonable assumption (even if wrong) that those who invite our vote and support to govern the country include 'running stuff competently' as part of their platform, and that between them they know enough and can access enough expertise at our expense to be able to do it.
I'm not saying they should.
The point is that regulation isn't a big political issue, even when its effects are massive, and that contributes to the election of politicians who don't get it either.
Effective pragmatism is highly underrated politically (except in retrospect). That's a hard problem, and it's not a reasonable assumption that politicians will be effective pragmatists, unless more of us vote for them on that basis.
Fair points.
BTW a day or two back you mentioned about the way a 1979 Brahms recording was still the best around. Yes. But there is more, IMHO the Karajan recording of Rosenkavalier, 1956, is still the best, as is the Hollywood 1950 version of Schubert's string quintet.
The other week R3 also failed to make the remarkable young Korean virtuoso Lim Yunchan's* recording of Liszt's transcendental studies their top pick, going instead for Lazar Berman's more poetic account from 1963.
*It is nonetheless an astonishing live recording.
Crashing in down market, it struck me the other day that the approx 2 seconds in which Sam Cooke sings "Cupid, draw back your bow" in that sweetest and purest of voices, over the melody, can't actually be improved upon as 2 seconds of experience go.
Well, I've just got round to reading Blair's essay. It's neither as good as his fans claim, nor as bad as his critics would wish. But it's not hugely consequential either way, with nothing particularly novel or ground-breaking in it. And he's not nearly as critical of Starmer (or Burnham, for that matter) as those who've not read it seem to think.
I could write a full review, but it's not worth it. He rewrites history, and our current circumstances, a bit too much for my liking. Suffice to say that he's as obsessed with AI as a distinguished, albeit currently banned, PB legend. I suspect he's overplaying the influence of AI, particularly in the short to medium term. I'm not sure why.
Where the particular issue of air conditioning is concerned, I at least had no idea there were any such laws until reading about it on here, so it may not be a big issue for voters.
The detail of most regulation is of no interest at all to the vast majority of voters. But the cumulative effects of bad regulation are of great political significance.
But how many voters even link the two things ?
Why should they? Most people are not expert in the large subject of governing medium sized countries really well. But it is a reasonable assumption (even if wrong) that those who invite our vote and support to govern the country include 'running stuff competently' as part of their platform, and that between them they know enough and can access enough expertise at our expense to be able to do it.
I'm not saying they should.
The point is that regulation isn't a big political issue, even when its effects are massive, and that contributes to the election of politicians who don't get it either.
Effective pragmatism is highly underrated politically (except in retrospect). That's a hard problem, and it's not a reasonable assumption that politicians will be effective pragmatists, unless more of us vote for them on that basis.
Fair points.
BTW a day or two back you mentioned about the way a 1979 Brahms recording was still the best around. Yes. But there is more, IMHO the Karajan recording of Rosenkavalier, 1956, is still the best, as is the Hollywood 1950 version of Schubert's string quintet.
The other week R3 also failed to make the remarkable young Korean virtuoso Lim Yunchan's* recording of Liszt's transcendental studies their top pick, going instead for Lazar Berman's more poetic account from 1963.
*It is nonetheless an astonishing live recording.
Crashing in down market, it struck me the other day that the approx 2 seconds in which Sam Cooke sings "Cupid, draw back your bow" in that sweetest and purest of voices, over the melody, can't actually be improved upon as 2 seconds of experience go.
Let me tell you 'bout a place..... Happy memories of 64 years ago.
O/T Mrs P. had a lucky escape today in a local car park.
Having parked her car and whilst walking to the exit an unmanned electric vehicle suddenly reversed at speed past here and her friend and rammed into a wall, missing them by a couple of yards and causing extensive damage to the car..
The owner had parked the car but forgotten to switch it off while she went to the parking ticket machine.
No idea what prompted the car to suddenly reverse at speed - presumably some kind of software malfunction?
If a young Tony Blair were Tory leader right now, how many points ahead do you reckon they'd be? And how many home truths would he tell a stunned Party Conference? Both answers would be in double figures I should imagine.
Where the particular issue of air conditioning is concerned, I at least had no idea there were any such laws until reading about it on here, so it may not be a big issue for voters.
The detail of most regulation is of no interest at all to the vast majority of voters. But the cumulative effects of bad regulation are of great political significance.
But how many voters even link the two things ?
Why should they? Most people are not expert in the large subject of governing medium sized countries really well. But it is a reasonable assumption (even if wrong) that those who invite our vote and support to govern the country include 'running stuff competently' as part of their platform, and that between them they know enough and can access enough expertise at our expense to be able to do it.
I'm not saying they should.
The point is that regulation isn't a big political issue, even when its effects are massive, and that contributes to the election of politicians who don't get it either.
Effective pragmatism is highly underrated politically (except in retrospect). That's a hard problem, and it's not a reasonable assumption that politicians will be effective pragmatists, unless more of us vote for them on that basis.
Fair points.
BTW a day or two back you mentioned about the way a 1979 Brahms recording was still the best around. Yes. But there is more, IMHO the Karajan recording of Rosenkavalier, 1956, is still the best, as is the Hollywood 1950 version of Schubert's string quintet.
The other week R3 also failed to make the remarkable young Korean virtuoso Lim Yunchan's* recording of Liszt's transcendental studies their top pick, going instead for Lazar Berman's more poetic account from 1963.
*It is nonetheless an astonishing live recording.
Crashing in down market, it struck me the other day that the approx 2 seconds in which Sam Cooke sings "Cupid, draw back your bow" in that sweetest and purest of voices, over the melody, can't actually be improved upon as 2 seconds of experience go.
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
As Dawn Abbot pointed out, constitutionally it is the Labour Party collectively, not Keir Starmer individually, that has the electoral mandate. If SKS cannot command the confidence of the house and AB can, then it's constitutionally OK for the King to make AB PM
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
Shouldn't Blair's comments on Net Zero be challenged, ChatGPT reckons:
Most mainstream economic analysis says that, in the long run, not pursuing net zero would probably cost the UK more than pursuing it — but there are important caveats about who pays, when, and which policies are used.
Here’s the core debate in simple terms:
Arguments that net zero is ultimately cheaper
The UK’s independent advisers — especially the Climate Change Committee and Office for Budget Responsibility — argue that:
climate damage from unchecked warming will become very expensive, fossil fuel price shocks (like the 2022 gas crisis) are costly, renewable electricity and EVs are getting cheaper, and energy independence reduces long-term risk.
The OBR said in 2025 that the estimated fiscal cost of the transition had fallen significantly compared with earlier forecasts, while the expected economic damage from climate change had risen.
The Climate Change Committee also concluded that reaching net zero is “more cost-effective” than continued fossil-fuel dependence in all the scenarios it tested.
Arguments that net zero is expensive
Critics argue that:
households face high upfront costs (heat pumps, insulation, EVs), industry can become less competitive if energy prices rise, government subsidies and infrastructure spending are large, and some technologies may not deliver as cheaply as forecast.
They also argue official estimates can be optimistic and underestimate real system costs.
The important distinction: short term vs long term
A lot depends on the timeframe.
Short term: net zero policies can absolutely increase costs in some sectors and for some households. Long term: most official economic modelling says climate damage, energy insecurity, and fossil fuel volatility would cost more overall if the UK did little or nothing.
So the disagreement is often less about whether there are costs — there clearly are — and more about:
whether the benefits justify them, whether the transition is being managed efficiently, and how fairly the costs are distributed. Bottom line
If you ask:
“Does net zero require major spending and economic change?”
then yes.
If you ask:
“Do most economists and official UK institutions think abandoning net zero would be cheaper overall?”
then generally no — the dominant view in UK official analysis is that failing to decarbonise would likely be more expensive over time because of climate damage and fossil-fuel dependence.
Seems fair to me. So are we in favour of short termism and being hostage to Middle East and Russian problems, or are we in favour of Net Zero?
ChatGPT just reflects back most of what is put online, the overwhelming majority of which is heavily sponsored pro net zero stuff. Its job is to collage together a plausible argument out of this, not to do a serious cost benefit analysis.
What entertains me is that some very silly commentors on PB have been decrying Kemi and her 'lurch to the right' on Net Zero, and now the patron saint of centrism has come in and said 'it's basically all a bit silly isn't it?' like the society of putting things on top of other things. So they're reduced to saying what a shifty wrong 'un he always was.
Have you ever considered that you might actually be wrong, and your view that it's somehow all fine that energy is foreign owned and a lot dearer is self-evidently absurd, and that the Emperor's flabby arse has been well and truly exposed?
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
As Dawn Abbot pointed out, constitutionally it is the Labour Party collectively, not Keir Starmer individually, that has the electoral mandate. If SKS cannot command the confidence of the house and AB can, then it's constitutionally OK for the King to make AB PM
It is, though every time we get a change the parties develop selective amnesia about their previous views on the subject.
Well, I've just got round to reading Blair's essay. It's neither as good as his fans claim, nor as bad as his critics would wish. But it's not hugely consequential either way, with nothing particularly novel or ground-breaking in it. And he's not nearly as critical of Starmer (or Burnham, for that matter) as those who've not read it seem to think.
I could write a full review, but it's not worth it. He rewrites history, and our current circumstances, a bit too much for my liking. Suffice to say that he's as obsessed with AI as a distinguished, albeit currently banned, PB legend. I suspect he's overplaying the influence of AI, particularly in the short to medium term. I'm not sure why.
I think we do know why. A combination of chasing a trend (albeit one with some basis) and that being where the money is. He wants to be a visionary.
Shouldn't Blair's comments on Net Zero be challenged, ChatGPT reckons:
Most mainstream economic analysis says that, in the long run, not pursuing net zero would probably cost the UK more than pursuing it — but there are important caveats about who pays, when, and which policies are used.
Here’s the core debate in simple terms:
Arguments that net zero is ultimately cheaper
The UK’s independent advisers — especially the Climate Change Committee and Office for Budget Responsibility — argue that:
climate damage from unchecked warming will become very expensive, fossil fuel price shocks (like the 2022 gas crisis) are costly, renewable electricity and EVs are getting cheaper, and energy independence reduces long-term risk.
The OBR said in 2025 that the estimated fiscal cost of the transition had fallen significantly compared with earlier forecasts, while the expected economic damage from climate change had risen.
The Climate Change Committee also concluded that reaching net zero is “more cost-effective” than continued fossil-fuel dependence in all the scenarios it tested.
Arguments that net zero is expensive
Critics argue that:
households face high upfront costs (heat pumps, insulation, EVs), industry can become less competitive if energy prices rise, government subsidies and infrastructure spending are large, and some technologies may not deliver as cheaply as forecast.
They also argue official estimates can be optimistic and underestimate real system costs.
The important distinction: short term vs long term
A lot depends on the timeframe.
Short term: net zero policies can absolutely increase costs in some sectors and for some households. Long term: most official economic modelling says climate damage, energy insecurity, and fossil fuel volatility would cost more overall if the UK did little or nothing.
So the disagreement is often less about whether there are costs — there clearly are — and more about:
whether the benefits justify them, whether the transition is being managed efficiently, and how fairly the costs are distributed. Bottom line
If you ask:
“Does net zero require major spending and economic change?”
then yes.
If you ask:
“Do most economists and official UK institutions think abandoning net zero would be cheaper overall?”
then generally no — the dominant view in UK official analysis is that failing to decarbonise would likely be more expensive over time because of climate damage and fossil-fuel dependence.
Seems fair to me. So are we in favour of short termism and being hostage to Middle East and Russian problems, or are we in favour of Net Zero?
ChatGPT just reflects back most of what is put online, the overwhelming majority of which is heavily sponsored pro net zero stuff. Its job is to collage together a plausible argument out of this, not to do a serious cost benefit analysis.
Try using your own brain.
A strong argument for relying on ChatGPT instead of only your own thinking is not that it is smarter than you in some absolute sense, but that it changes the economics of cognition. A few versions of that argument:
Speed and breadth: A model can instantly retrieve patterns across enormous amounts of text, disciplines, and styles. A single person cannot internally hold the equivalent of millions of books, programming examples, legal templates, medical summaries, historical comparisons, etc. So for synthesis and recall, external cognition can outperform unaided memory.
Reduction of friction: Humans often know roughly what they want but get blocked by activation energy — drafting, organising, searching, translating vague intuitions into structured output. ChatGPT lowers that friction. In practice, many valuable ideas never become real because the effort threshold is too high.
Parallel perspectives: Your own brain is constrained by your experiences, habits, biases, and emotional state. A model can generate alternative framings quickly, such as counterarguments, unfamiliar analogies, edge cases, stylistic variants, and probabilistic possibilities you might not spontaneously consider.
Cognitive outsourcing already exists: Writing, calculators, maps, search engines, and spreadsheets all externalise mental work. ChatGPT can be viewed as a continuation of that trend: outsourcing parts of reasoning, drafting, memory retrieval, and pattern matching.
Human cognition is unreliable in predictable ways: People forget, rationalise, anchor, hallucinate memories, and become emotionally attached to conclusions. In some domains, a system that calmly aggregates information can outperform intuition.
Well, I've just got round to reading Blair's essay. It's neither as good as his fans claim, nor as bad as his critics would wish. But it's not hugely consequential either way, with nothing particularly novel or ground-breaking in it. And he's not nearly as critical of Starmer (or Burnham, for that matter) as those who've not read it seem to think.
I could write a full review, but it's not worth it. He rewrites history, and our current circumstances, a bit too much for my liking. Suffice to say that he's as obsessed with AI as a distinguished, albeit currently banned, PB legend. I suspect he's overplaying the influence of AI, particularly in the short to medium term. I'm not sure why.
I think we do know why. A combination of chasing a trend (albeit one with some basis) and that being where the money is. He wants to be a visionary.
Hasn't his foundation been heavily subsidised by Tech Bros?
Trump says Iran "thought they were going to out wait me, you know, we'll out wait him, he's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms, look what happened last night, that was the prelude to the midterms."
Trump has got himself to the Presidency twice but has been a disaster from GOP Congressional candidates in midterms when he has done so and that is likely to continue in November after the more electable establishment Cornyn lost the GOP Senate nomination in Texas to Paxton. If the Democrats win the Texas Senate race that could now be the seat that gives them control of the Senate
The betting has however, I'm displeased to note, moved back a little towards the GOP recently.
Mainly as generic Republicans now poll better on issues like the economy than Trump but as Trump increasingly ensures all GOP candidates are Trump mouthpieces that advantage generic Republicans had is declining
"One of the fundamental problems Kemi & The Tories face – politicalbetting.com TSE"
Which seems like the ultimate humblebrag.
I know! And on a day when a former Labour Prime .Minister is hanging his Labour successors out to dry.
I have yet to read the actual article but I did read a fairly lengthy summary on the BBC of Blair's piece. With the possible exception of joining the EU again I agreed with all of it. In fact I agreed with it a lot more than I have done with any politician from any political party for a very long time. Not sure where this puts Blair on the political spectrum but it is certainly to the right of both Starmer (to the extent he has a fixed position at all on pretty much anything) or Burnham.
So the IOWC council meeting is underway and straight off there’s a contest between the current Indy chair of the council and a nominee put forward by Reform. The existing chair seems to have been advised he has an interest and left the meeting - another example of officer overreach on the council (there’s nothing to stop members staying and voting for themselves) - whether or not the Reform nominee does similarly remains to be seen.
It is very longstanding practice that at local authority level chairs cannot vote for themselves because they cannot preside over their own election (this is case law not statute), and they cannot be in the room if not presiding because if present they musy preside (this is statute) hence being unable to vote. Not that they have an intetest but that they cannot not preside if present. The authority on LA meetings Knowles states that and has since the early 70s when first written and since updated, and you can find countless examples of it happening all over the country going back decades. If you ask copilot it will say chairs can do it because the act does not expressly prohihit it but the law is more than one act, and if you push it it will admit its position is an interpretation which has not been tested whether the common law interpretation they cannot remains the case.
So no, it's not officer overreach, it is the normal interpretation which someone needs to take to court and test if they think the standard monitoring officer interpretation is incorrect.
That's how many such matters are settled, through petty disputes. If the chair leaves the vice-chair presides. The chair could evrn have quit as chair just before the meeting and let the vice-chair preside no issue.
Well, I've just got round to reading Blair's essay. It's neither as good as his fans claim, nor as bad as his critics would wish. But it's not hugely consequential either way, with nothing particularly novel or ground-breaking in it. And he's not nearly as critical of Starmer (or Burnham, for that matter) as those who've not read it seem to think.
I could write a full review, but it's not worth it. He rewrites history, and our current circumstances, a bit too much for my liking. Suffice to say that he's as obsessed with AI as a distinguished, albeit currently banned, PB legend. I suspect he's overplaying the influence of AI, particularly in the short to medium term. I'm not sure why.
I think we do know why. A combination of chasing a trend (albeit one with some basis) and that being where the money is. He wants to be a visionary.
I've read it.
I agree it's not nearly as critical of Starmer or Burnham as right wing media make out, but it's not complimentary either.
It could have been written in 2006
It would have been pertinent in 2016
For once I agree with Burnham who I don't rate, it's completely missing the anger and frustration of 2026.voters after the past 15 years politically.
"One of the fundamental problems Kemi & The Tories face – politicalbetting.com TSE"
Which seems like the ultimate humblebrag.
I know! And on a day when a former Labour Prime .Minister is hanging his Labour successors out to dry.
I have yet to read the actual article but I did read a fairly lengthy summary on the BBC of Blair's piece. With the possible exception of joining the EU again I agreed with all of it. In fact I agreed with it a lot more than I have done with any politician from any political party for a very long time. Not sure where this puts Blair on the political spectrum but it is certainly to the right of both Starmer (to the extent he has a fixed position at all on pretty much anything) or Burnham.
Tim Shipman points out that everyone quietly agrees with nearly all of it. (This has been linked already today I think, and it's worth a look). I think what Shipman has to say is more than interesting:
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
Some, I'm sure. But her legal innocence also does not preclude people opining she should have known or if not should have, was negligent as leader or even criticised anyone who questioned the finances.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
There's certainly one crime here and it's how god-awful that Daily Record website is, it's like its radiating cookies and general tat into the atmosphere like Chernobyl.
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
As Dawn Abbot pointed out, constitutionally it is the Labour Party collectively, not Keir Starmer individually, that has the electoral mandate. If SKS cannot command the confidence of the house and AB can, then it's constitutionally OK for the King to make AB PM
Problem is it'll cause a lot of hypocrisy from Labour supporters who were saying there should be a general election when the Tories changed their leader when in office, but now will be saying there doesn't need to be one.
"One of the fundamental problems Kemi & The Tories face – politicalbetting.com TSE"
Which seems like the ultimate humblebrag.
I know! And on a day when a former Labour Prime .Minister is hanging his Labour successors out to dry.
I have yet to read the actual article but I did read a fairly lengthy summary on the BBC of Blair's piece. With the possible exception of joining the EU again I agreed with all of it. In fact I agreed with it a lot more than I have done with any politician from any political party for a very long time. Not sure where this puts Blair on the political spectrum but it is certainly to the right of both Starmer (to the extent he has a fixed position at all on pretty much anything) or Burnham.
Tim Shipman points out that everyone quietly agrees with nearly all of it. (This has been linked already today I think, and it's worth a look). I think what Shipman has to say is more than interesting:
And I agree with pretty much all of it, even if some of it is more than a little simplistic and facile (understandable when you're trying to keep an article to a reasonable length).
My one reservation is that he is very clear (as all UK PMs have been for 70 years in all fairness) that our relationship with the USA should still be central to our security and international standing. I have those reservations not just because of Trump but what Trump represents in US politics. The America first stuff isn't just Trump, it is pretty much 50% of the USA. And that makes me wonder if this is a reliable ally that we can count on being there when it matters. I think we need alternatives and, ironically, I think this is an area where I am more in favour of integration and coordination with the EU than Blair is.
Shippers piece is interesting too but more than somewhat lacks the grand sweep that Blair offers. I hope Kemi reads Blair's analysis very closely and gives serious thought to where her party is going next.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
For an experienced lawyer, he seems to be putting out too many statements too quickly. Either she is directing him to, or he's worried. One statement and then silence would be the default, no?
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
How much do you blame the left for the rise of the populist right?
Sweltering night, listening to Saxophone Colossus in honour of Sonny Rollins and there couldn’t be a better accompaniment to bottles of cold French cider in the warm gloaming.
Excl: Sir Keir Starmer is under mounting pressure from his Cabinet to rethink Labour's net-zero agenda.
The Times has been told that, in an escalating battle over the future of the party, ministers are increasingly questioning the central argument behind Labour's opposition to new North Sea drilling. They warn that the government risks ignoring the wider economic benefits of domestic oil and gas production.
The Times understands senior Labour figures have privately challenged repeated claims that new oil and gas exploration would "not take a penny off bills".
Ministers have consistently said that because oil prices are set internationally, lifting Labour's ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration would make no difference to the amount paid by consumers.
Some ministers and industry figures believe, however, that increasing domestic oil and gas production could strengthen the pound and lower costs across the economy.
One source said: "Usually Ed [Miliband] would have the PM's ear on this stuff, but since the betrayal over the leadership, other arguments are now being heard." Miliband was among the cabinet ministers who urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure.
Another said: "There's definitely a sense now that more people are willing to challenge Ed internally than they were a few months ago."
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
As Dawn Abbot pointed out, constitutionally it is the Labour Party collectively, not Keir Starmer individually, that has the electoral mandate. If SKS cannot command the confidence of the house and AB can, then it's constitutionally OK for the King to make AB PM
Problem is it'll cause a lot of hypocrisy from Labour supporters who were saying there should be a general election when the Tories changed their leader when in office, but now will be saying there doesn't need to be one.
Starmer could threaten to call one as his last act before leaving office. That might just cause one or two backbenchers to pause for thought.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It is telling that, despite all the guff from Sturgeon's lawyers that she was cooperating fully with the investigation, she chose to remain silent rather than answer when questioned by the police. The same tactic used by Mafia hoods to avoid conviction.
She didn't have just a passive role either. She also ensured that the SNP under her leadership did everything possible to obstruct investigation into the missing funds that it eventually turned out had been embezzled by Murrell, from the point in January 2020 when Wings Over Scotland first started asking awkward questions until the point of her resignation in February 2023, shortly before Murrell was charged by the police.
Excl: Sir Keir Starmer is under mounting pressure from his Cabinet to rethink Labour's net-zero agenda.
The Times has been told that, in an escalating battle over the future of the party, ministers are increasingly questioning the central argument behind Labour's opposition to new North Sea drilling. They warn that the government risks ignoring the wider economic benefits of domestic oil and gas production.
The Times understands senior Labour figures have privately challenged repeated claims that new oil and gas exploration would "not take a penny off bills".
Ministers have consistently said that because oil prices are set internationally, lifting Labour's ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration would make no difference to the amount paid by consumers.
Some ministers and industry figures believe, however, that increasing domestic oil and gas production could strengthen the pound and lower costs across the economy.
One source said: "Usually Ed [Miliband] would have the PM's ear on this stuff, but since the betrayal over the leadership, other arguments are now being heard." Miliband was among the cabinet ministers who urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure.
Another said: "There's definitely a sense now that more people are willing to challenge Ed internally than they were a few months ago."
Here’s a thought, let’s use the oil and gas money from the North Sea to fund electrification, or to put belatedly into a wealth fund.
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
As Dawn Abbot pointed out, constitutionally it is the Labour Party collectively, not Keir Starmer individually, that has the electoral mandate. If SKS cannot command the confidence of the house and AB can, then it's constitutionally OK for the King to make AB PM
Problem is it'll cause a lot of hypocrisy from Labour supporters who were saying there should be a general election when the Tories changed their leader when in office, but now will be saying there doesn't need to be one.
I think you'll find that was very different. Circumstances. Wind direction. It was a Wednesday. Or Monday. Whatever. Very different.
Excl: Sir Keir Starmer is under mounting pressure from his Cabinet to rethink Labour's net-zero agenda.
The Times has been told that, in an escalating battle over the future of the party, ministers are increasingly questioning the central argument behind Labour's opposition to new North Sea drilling. They warn that the government risks ignoring the wider economic benefits of domestic oil and gas production.
The Times understands senior Labour figures have privately challenged repeated claims that new oil and gas exploration would "not take a penny off bills".
Ministers have consistently said that because oil prices are set internationally, lifting Labour's ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration would make no difference to the amount paid by consumers.
Some ministers and industry figures believe, however, that increasing domestic oil and gas production could strengthen the pound and lower costs across the economy.
One source said: "Usually Ed [Miliband] would have the PM's ear on this stuff, but since the betrayal over the leadership, other arguments are now being heard." Miliband was among the cabinet ministers who urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure.
Another said: "There's definitely a sense now that more people are willing to challenge Ed internally than they were a few months ago."
Here’s a thought, let’s use the oil and gas money from the North Sea to fund electrification, or to put belatedly into a wealth fund.
It’s really taken this long to realise that Miliband is an utter ideological eco looney.
Excl: Sir Keir Starmer is under mounting pressure from his Cabinet to rethink Labour's net-zero agenda.
The Times has been told that, in an escalating battle over the future of the party, ministers are increasingly questioning the central argument behind Labour's opposition to new North Sea drilling. They warn that the government risks ignoring the wider economic benefits of domestic oil and gas production.
The Times understands senior Labour figures have privately challenged repeated claims that new oil and gas exploration would "not take a penny off bills".
Ministers have consistently said that because oil prices are set internationally, lifting Labour's ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration would make no difference to the amount paid by consumers.
Some ministers and industry figures believe, however, that increasing domestic oil and gas production could strengthen the pound and lower costs across the economy.
One source said: "Usually Ed [Miliband] would have the PM's ear on this stuff, but since the betrayal over the leadership, other arguments are now being heard." Miliband was among the cabinet ministers who urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure.
Another said: "There's definitely a sense now that more people are willing to challenge Ed internally than they were a few months ago."
Here’s a thought, let’s use the oil and gas money from the North Sea to fund electrification, or to put belatedly into a wealth fund.
There is no way Ed M is retaining the energy brief after the change in PM.
O/T Mrs P. had a lucky escape today in a local car park.
Having parked her car and whilst walking to the exit an unmanned electric vehicle suddenly reversed at speed past here and her friend and rammed into a wall, missing them by a couple of yards and causing extensive damage to the car..
The owner had parked the car but forgotten to switch it off while she went to the parking ticket machine.
No idea what prompted the car to suddenly reverse at speed - presumably some kind of software malfunction?
The owner had probably treated it badly, and it was looking to escape.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It is telling that, despite all the guff from Sturgeon's lawyers that she was cooperating fully with the investigation, she chose to remain silent rather than answer when questioned by the police. The same tactic used by Mafia hoods to avoid conviction.
She didn't have just a passive role either. She also ensured that the SNP under her leadership did everything possible to obstruct investigation into the missing funds that it eventually turned out had been embezzled by Murrell, from the point in January 2020 when Wings Over Scotland first started asking awkward questions until the point of her resignation in February 2023, shortly before Murrell was charged by the police.
Worth pointing out a Scottish difference: a jury in Scotland is not allowed to draw adverse inference from post-arrest silence as they are in England.
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
How much do you blame the left for the rise of the populist right?
Not much given it's been the Tories in power for 14 years before the last 2. Not that I particularly blame the Tories either for it. If we're looking for *people* to blame for the rise of the populist right, I'd restrict that to those who campaign and vote for it. Of course there's the slightly different question of *why* large numbers are voting that way, here and elsewhere. I'm probably not the best placed to answer this since I'm so repelled by it.
@Andy_JS asks upthread if the "left" is responsible for the rise of the "populist right"?
It's a curious question or series of questions to be honest. Given we had Conservative Government for nearly a decade and a half, it's hard to see what "the left" had to do with any of it.
Indeed, the only thing for which you could blame Labour is dispensing with its own populist in the form of Jeremy Corbyn for the more "moderate" and electorally successful Keir Starmer. The trouble is the supporters of Corbyn didnt acquiesce as they did in the times of Blair and Brown and have gone on to influence and infiltrate other groups.
As for "the Right", the long-running sore of EU membership was lanced in 2016 and that should have led to a reunification of Conservatives (as it did under Johnson) but somewhere Jonnsonian Conservatism lost its way - perhaps it was trying to be too much for too many people and the big tent collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.
Liberal conservatism limped on under Sunak to a devastating defeat while social conservatism found a new niche in Reform and Restore.
Thus you had failures on both sides of the fence and schisms in both albeit along different lines so the answer is no, the "right" has to take its share of blame for what has happened.
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
As Dawn Abbot pointed out, constitutionally it is the Labour Party collectively, not Keir Starmer individually, that has the electoral mandate. If SKS cannot command the confidence of the house and AB can, then it's constitutionally OK for the King to make AB PM
Problem is it'll cause a lot of hypocrisy from Labour supporters who were saying there should be a general election when the Tories changed their leader when in office, but now will be saying there doesn't need to be one.
What else is new?
Hypocrisy has never stopped a partisan. Never has, never will.
EXCL Tony Blair is poised to escalate his interventions in Labour’s leadership race after allies said criticism from Andy Burnham had “put a fire in his belly” and hardened his resolve to shape the party’s future.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
For what it’s worth, and I speak as someone who thinks Sturgeon is a liar (see Alec Salmond case for instance) in this I can believ3 she is actually innocent. Muriel’s purchases look far more like the crime of compulsion rather than a realistic attempt to just be greedy. The crime itself was the thing. I don’t see Sturgeon being a part of that. Statements about accounts were surely just typical political bullshit.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It is telling that, despite all the guff from Sturgeon's lawyers that she was cooperating fully with the investigation, she chose to remain silent rather than answer when questioned by the police. The same tactic used by Mafia hoods to avoid conviction.
She didn't have just a passive role either. She also ensured that the SNP under her leadership did everything possible to obstruct investigation into the missing funds that it eventually turned out had been embezzled by Murrell, from the point in January 2020 when Wings Over Scotland first started asking awkward questions until the point of her resignation in February 2023, shortly before Murrell was charged by the police.
Worth pointing out a Scottish difference: a jury in Scotland is not allowed to draw adverse inference from post-arrest silence as they are in England.
How do they get stopped from doing so? A judge can direct, but if a jury is minded surely they can ignore?
AI means bots making life much more annoying. Its being used to make it more difficult to contact Companies or complain. Hence the difficulty in finding telephone nos for businesses one is now experiencing.. If I can't call them I won't do business with them. Chats with bots are a special no no. Lack of person to person conversation is destroying the Society that I know.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It is telling that, despite all the guff from Sturgeon's lawyers that she was cooperating fully with the investigation, she chose to remain silent rather than answer when questioned by the police. The same tactic used by Mafia hoods to avoid conviction.
She didn't have just a passive role either. She also ensured that the SNP under her leadership did everything possible to obstruct investigation into the missing funds that it eventually turned out had been embezzled by Murrell, from the point in January 2020 when Wings Over Scotland first started asking awkward questions until the point of her resignation in February 2023, shortly before Murrell was charged by the police.
Worth pointing out a Scottish difference: a jury in Scotland is not allowed to draw adverse inference from post-arrest silence as they are in England.
How do they get stopped from doing so? A judge can direct, but if a jury is minded surely they can ignore?
In reality, no comment interviews are almost never played to the jury. There is no point. So the jury are unlikely even to know.
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
According to the Daily Record her lawyer has also said this;
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It is telling that, despite all the guff from Sturgeon's lawyers that she was cooperating fully with the investigation, she chose to remain silent rather than answer when questioned by the police. The same tactic used by Mafia hoods to avoid conviction.
She didn't have just a passive role either. She also ensured that the SNP under her leadership did everything possible to obstruct investigation into the missing funds that it eventually turned out had been embezzled by Murrell, from the point in January 2020 when Wings Over Scotland first started asking awkward questions until the point of her resignation in February 2023, shortly before Murrell was charged by the police.
Worth pointing out a Scottish difference: a jury in Scotland is not allowed to draw adverse inference from post-arrest silence as they are in England.
How do they get stopped from doing so? A judge can direct, but if a jury is minded surely they can ignore?
In reality, no comment interviews are almost never played to the jury. There is no point. So the jury are unlikely even to know.
In England though if you mention something in court but not at an interview, are you not asked why you didn't say it earlier (in my extremely limited experience)? Does that happen in Scotland?
(One time I was on the jury and the judge actually rebuked a police officer for reading out the words of the accused, because his response was 'here you are again you"re still trying to fucking frame me after the last time you fitted me up and you're mad I'm out again - revealing the accused had a criminal record...)
"One of the fundamental problems Kemi & The Tories face – politicalbetting.com TSE"
Which seems like the ultimate humblebrag.
I know! And on a day when a former Labour Prime .Minister is hanging his Labour successors out to dry.
Blair might be trying to hang Burnham out to dry, but he's not succeeded. When Burnham is explicitly campaigning on the basis of changing Labour from the direction it's taken over the last 40 years, having Blair rail against him amounts to confirmation that he means what he says.
This is worth a read. A few extracts follow given that it's behind a paywall:
".....Even the things he believes in were expressed with a kind of breathless naivety. A great many words in the article concern the inevitability of AI, which he seemingly wants to proceed without any regulation at all. But it is precisely because AI brings opportunities and threats that it must be grappled through policy: encouraging what is good, discouraging what is bad, working to reskill those who lose their jobs because of it, thinking ahead to the kind of jobs that will be created or given new life by it. Just standing aside and saying how marvellous it all is is not a strategy.
Most of Blair’s recommendations align cosily with his commercial interests. Oracle boss Larry Ellison’s foundation has donated tens of millions to the Tony Blair Institute. His company has invested heavily in AI. Blair now advances Ellison’s view on AI, particularly on the use of health care data. The Tony Blair Institute works with fossil fuel companies and oil states, recently signing a multimillion-pound deal to advise the Saudi government. Blair now campaigns against net zero, the most successful area of Labour Government policy delivery with broad support across the country.....
“This side of the water, we’re being told some home truths,” Blair argues. The Americans want us to be “bigger and better partners”, not to distance themselves from us. They are still our allies. Trump, due to his concern about Russia in the Arctic, sees the world “no differently from how Europe sees the world”.
Every part of this assessment is wrong. Trump does not speak “home truths”. He lies. Trump does not want us strong. He wants us weak. He views the world in terms of personal fiefdoms and would prefer the UK as a minor subordinate in the American sphere of interest. Trump does not see the world as Europe does. He is an ally of Russia. He wishes to destroy Europe.
All of this is so obvious it barely needs saying. ...... The level of wilful blindness you need to believe otherwise is astonishing.....No matter what happens in the objective world, no matter how irrefutable the evidence against him, he will continue on regardless, because he has built an ideological blast shield around his mind.
It’s a sad, ignoble end to a great political mind."
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
As Dawn Abbot pointed out, constitutionally it is the Labour Party collectively, not Keir Starmer individually, that has the electoral mandate. If SKS cannot command the confidence of the house and AB can, then it's constitutionally OK for the King to make AB PM
Problem is it'll cause a lot of hypocrisy from Labour supporters who were saying there should be a general election when the Tories changed their leader when in office, but now will be saying there doesn't need to be one.
Starmer could threaten to call one as his last act before leaving office. That might just cause one or two backbenchers to pause for thought.
Nah, Starmer supports Burnham. He knows thay his time is nearly up.
EXCL Tony Blair is poised to escalate his interventions in Labour’s leadership race after allies said criticism from Andy Burnham had “put a fire in his belly” and hardened his resolve to shape the party’s future.
Is there anything more likely to smooth Burnham's ascension to the Premiership than criticism from Tony Blair, fire in his belly or not?
Leaving aside the inherent absurdity (it would be like Harold Wilson intervening in 1994 leadership election, or john Major intervening in 2016), it's a complete failure to read the room.
And that's before we do the whole "My project will be complete when the Labour Party learns to love Peter Mandelson" thing.
EXCL Tony Blair is poised to escalate his interventions in Labour’s leadership race after allies said criticism from Andy Burnham had “put a fire in his belly” and hardened his resolve to shape the party’s future.
Fair amount of delusion going on there.
If he favours any given policy, probably the best thing he can do for its prospects with Labour is go away and shut up about it.
EXCL Tony Blair is poised to escalate his interventions in Labour’s leadership race after allies said criticism from Andy Burnham had “put a fire in his belly” and hardened his resolve to shape the party’s future.
Fair amount of delusion going on there.
If he favours any given policy, probably the best thing he can do for its prospects with Labour is go away and shut up about it.
I'm suffering a conflict about Andy Burnham which I hope to feel better for sharing.
The #1 political priority for me (by miles) is that the Populist Right don't get their hands on national power, ie Reform must not win the next GE. It would be a moral and £££ catastrophe (imo). Whatever is needed to stop it has to happen. Which means, since Keir Starmer can't connect, a new Labour leader is required, specifically one who *can* connect and who polls well. AB is therefore just what the doctor ordered. He's the answer to my prayers and I so so want him to sweep in and take over. Cmon Andy!
OTOH. Less than 2 years ago, a chap named Keir Starmer decisively won a GE. Ok, a churlishly given landslide, and ming vase, no plan etc etc, but so what, all GEs have their features and that was GE24. The fact is after 4 years as LOTO he campaigned to be PM and he won fair and square. Andy Burnham had bugger all to do with it. He was 7 years into being mayor of Manchester. Nobody was even thinking about Andy Burnham when they voted. Yet now, summer 26, a GE still ages away, here he comes barrelling down to London and all of a sudden he's our Prime Minister. I mean, cmon, that's not right.
I feel both these things at the same time and I don't like it. It's causing my temple to throb.
How much do you blame the left for the rise of the populist right?
Do you not think the populist right has agency? That they are only reacting or being manipulated?
It is just passive aggression. "Now look what you made me do" while cheering on a mob setting fire to a hotel.
Just seen Wes's Blair rebuttal. Forget the words, crisp as always, it's about the look. It's new. Face more angular, hair fuller and quiffed slightly on top, a bit like the Fonz. He's running alright.
Comments
Hard to have a civil war if it's one against all the rest.
*It is nonetheless an astonishing live recording.
"Tony Blair’s intervention could spark a period of unprecedented Labour unity."
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/2059683942987399238
What a fucking idiot
https://x.com/statedept/status/2059684326862901711?s=61
It’s a bit late but we really need education about the risks.
----
Edit - blockquote fail I can't quite solve.
It's another thing we're going to have to get to grips with as the summers get insanely hotter.
Would be nice if we had leisure centres that could fling open their doors for cheap/free entry for youngsters for pools and ice rinks to cool down in a safer environment, except they're all closing down because they're too expensive to heat/freeze.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/may/27/tony-blair-labour-essay-digested-read-john-crace
I could write a full review, but it's not worth it. He rewrites history, and our current circumstances, a bit too much for my liking. Suffice to say that he's as obsessed with AI as a distinguished, albeit currently banned, PB legend. I suspect he's overplaying the influence of AI, particularly in the short to medium term. I'm not sure why.
Happy memories of 64 years ago.
Having parked her car and whilst walking to the exit an unmanned electric vehicle suddenly reversed at speed past here and her friend and rammed into a wall, missing them by a couple of yards and causing extensive damage to the car..
The owner had parked the car but forgotten to switch it off while she went to the parking ticket machine.
No idea what prompted the car to suddenly reverse at speed - presumably some kind of software malfunction?
And how many home truths would he tell a stunned Party Conference?
Both answers would be in double figures I should imagine.
Try using your own brain.
Have you ever considered that you might actually be wrong, and your view that it's somehow all fine that energy is foreign owned and a lot dearer is self-evidently absurd, and that the Emperor's flabby arse has been well and truly exposed?
Speed and breadth: A model can instantly retrieve patterns across enormous amounts of text, disciplines, and styles. A single person cannot internally hold the equivalent of millions of books, programming examples, legal templates, medical summaries, historical comparisons, etc. So for synthesis and recall, external cognition can outperform unaided memory.
Reduction of friction: Humans often know roughly what they want but get blocked by activation energy — drafting, organising, searching, translating vague intuitions into structured output. ChatGPT lowers that friction. In practice, many valuable ideas never become real because the effort threshold is too high.
Parallel perspectives: Your own brain is constrained by your experiences, habits, biases, and emotional state. A model can generate alternative framings quickly, such as counterarguments, unfamiliar analogies, edge cases, stylistic variants, and probabilistic possibilities you might not spontaneously consider.
Cognitive outsourcing already exists: Writing, calculators, maps, search engines, and spreadsheets all externalise mental work. ChatGPT can be viewed as a continuation of that trend: outsourcing parts of reasoning, drafting, memory retrieval, and pattern matching.
Human cognition is unreliable in predictable ways: People forget, rationalise, anchor, hallucinate memories, and become emotionally attached to conclusions. In some domains, a system that calmly aggregates information can outperform intuition.
For anyone interested.
https://x.com/bbcquestiontime/status/2059702556994236474?s=61
So no, it's not officer overreach, it is the normal interpretation which someone needs to take to court and test if they think the standard monitoring officer interpretation is incorrect.
That's how many such matters are settled, through petty disputes. If the chair leaves the vice-chair presides. The chair could evrn have quit as chair just before the meeting and let the vice-chair preside no issue.
No,doubt the Toon will waste this cash on some useless no marks.
I agree it's not nearly as critical of Starmer or Burnham as right wing media make out, but it's not complimentary either.
It could have been written in 2006
It would have been pertinent in 2016
For once I agree with Burnham who I don't rate, it's completely missing the anger and frustration of 2026.voters after the past 15 years politically.
https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/2059540987995705567
Statement from Aamer Anwar issued on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon:
"It would appear some ‘armchair detectives’ think they are better placed than the gold-plated investigation of Police Scotland and now wish to try Ms Sturgeon for crimes she has not committed"
We learned at terrible cost in Iraq what happens when loyalty replaces judgment. I opposed the Iraq war - we must never make that mistake again.
Read my response to Blair here 👇
Today I’ve been speaking personally to undecided voters, listening to them and directly addressing the difficult issues.
My message is clear: I am standing to change Labour.'
https://x.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/2059677581016793098?s=20
"Had there been any evidence of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, then there can be no doubt that she would have been charged, prosecuted and presently be behind bars."
Which, if it is true it was said, is, as Shakespeare would say, the lie direct, as the lawyer knows. For a lawyer knows that there are tons of cases where there is 'evidence of criminality' but insufficient to bring the matter to trial where the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-lawyer-slams-armchair-37213747
And I agree with pretty much all of it, even if some of it is more than a little simplistic and facile (understandable when you're trying to keep an article to a reasonable length).
My one reservation is that he is very clear (as all UK PMs have been for 70 years in all fairness) that our relationship with the USA should still be central to our security and international standing. I have those reservations not just because of Trump but what Trump represents in US politics. The America first stuff isn't just Trump, it is pretty much 50% of the USA. And that makes me wonder if this is a reliable ally that we can count on being there when it matters. I think we need alternatives and, ironically, I think this is an area where I am more in favour of integration and coordination with the EU than Blair is.
Shippers piece is interesting too but more than somewhat lacks the grand sweep that Blair offers. I hope Kemi reads Blair's analysis very closely and gives serious thought to where her party is going next.
Excl: Sir Keir Starmer is under mounting pressure from his Cabinet to rethink Labour's net-zero agenda.
The Times has been told that, in an escalating battle over the future of the party, ministers are increasingly questioning the central argument behind Labour's opposition to new North Sea drilling. They warn that the government risks ignoring the wider economic benefits of domestic oil and gas production.
The Times understands senior Labour figures have privately challenged repeated claims that new oil and gas exploration would "not take a penny off bills".
Ministers have consistently said that because oil prices are set internationally, lifting Labour's ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration would make no difference to the amount paid by consumers.
Some ministers and industry figures believe, however, that increasing domestic oil and gas production could strengthen the pound and lower costs across the economy.
One source said: "Usually Ed [Miliband] would have the PM's ear on this stuff, but since the betrayal over the leadership, other arguments are now being heard." Miliband was among the cabinet ministers who urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure.
Another said: "There's definitely a sense now that more people are willing to challenge Ed internally than they were a few months ago."
She didn't have just a passive role either. She also ensured that the SNP under her leadership did everything possible to obstruct investigation into the missing funds that it eventually turned out had been embezzled by Murrell, from the point in January 2020 when Wings Over Scotland first started asking awkward questions until the point of her resignation in February 2023, shortly before Murrell was charged by the police.
He’s already stuffed us
@Andy_JS asks upthread if the "left" is responsible for the rise of the "populist right"?
It's a curious question or series of questions to be honest. Given we had Conservative Government for nearly a decade and a half, it's hard to see what "the left" had to do with any of it.
Indeed, the only thing for which you could blame Labour is dispensing with its own populist in the form of Jeremy Corbyn for the more "moderate" and electorally successful Keir Starmer. The trouble is the supporters of Corbyn didnt acquiesce as they did in the times of Blair and Brown and have gone on to influence and infiltrate other groups.
As for "the Right", the long-running sore of EU membership was lanced in 2016 and that should have led to a reunification of Conservatives (as it did under Johnson) but somewhere Jonnsonian Conservatism lost its way - perhaps it was trying to be too much for too many people and the big tent collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.
Liberal conservatism limped on under Sunak to a devastating defeat while social conservatism found a new niche in Reform and Restore.
Thus you had failures on both sides of the fence and schisms in both albeit along different lines so the answer is no, the "right" has to take its share of blame for what has happened.
Hypocrisy has never stopped a partisan. Never has, never will.
It is an irregular verb.
https://x.com/stefan_boscia/status/2059728949043658973
EXCL Tony Blair is poised to escalate his interventions in Labour’s leadership race after allies said criticism from Andy Burnham had “put a fire in his belly” and hardened his resolve to shape the party’s future.
Statements about accounts were surely just typical political bullshit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/clyp7l7zxdyo
Its being used to make it more difficult to contact Companies or complain. Hence the difficulty in finding telephone nos for businesses one is now experiencing..
If I can't call them I won't do business with them.
Chats with bots are a special no no. Lack of person to person conversation is destroying the Society that I know.
(One time I was on the jury and the judge actually rebuked a police officer for reading out the words of the accused, because his response was 'here you are again you"re still trying to fucking frame me after the last time you fitted me up and you're mad I'm out again - revealing the accused had a criminal record...)
This is worth a read. A few extracts follow given that it's behind a paywall:
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/tony-blairs-downfall-complete-sad-irrelevant-end-4439238
".....Even the things he believes in were expressed with a kind of breathless naivety. A great many words in the article concern the inevitability of AI, which he seemingly wants to proceed without any regulation at all. But it is precisely because AI brings opportunities and threats that it must be grappled through policy: encouraging what is good, discouraging what is bad, working to reskill those who lose their jobs because of it, thinking ahead to the kind of jobs that will be created or given new life by it. Just standing aside and saying how marvellous it all is is not a strategy.
Most of Blair’s recommendations align cosily with his commercial interests. Oracle boss Larry Ellison’s foundation has donated tens of millions to the Tony Blair Institute. His company has invested heavily in AI. Blair now advances Ellison’s view on AI, particularly on the use of health care data. The Tony Blair Institute works with fossil fuel companies and oil states, recently signing a multimillion-pound deal to advise the Saudi government. Blair now campaigns against net zero, the most successful area of Labour Government policy delivery with broad support across the country.....
“This side of the water, we’re being told some home truths,” Blair argues. The Americans want us to be “bigger and better partners”, not to distance themselves from us. They are still our allies. Trump, due to his concern about Russia in the Arctic, sees the world “no differently from how Europe sees the world”.
Every part of this assessment is wrong. Trump does not speak “home truths”. He lies. Trump does not want us strong. He wants us weak. He views the world in terms of personal fiefdoms and would prefer the UK as a minor subordinate in the American sphere of interest. Trump does not see the world as Europe does. He is an ally of Russia. He wishes to destroy Europe.
All of this is so obvious it barely needs saying. ...... The level of wilful blindness you need to believe otherwise is astonishing.....No matter what happens in the objective world, no matter how irrefutable the evidence against him, he will continue on regardless, because he has built an ideological blast shield around his mind.
It’s a sad, ignoble end to a great political mind."
Leaving aside the inherent absurdity (it would be like Harold Wilson intervening in 1994 leadership election, or john Major intervening in 2016), it's a complete failure to read the room.
And that's before we do the whole "My project will be complete when the Labour Party learns to love Peter Mandelson" thing.
HMRC has given trans taxpayers lifetime access to a VIP phone line which answers calls twice as fast
It claims access is needed to ensure “greater protection” of trans people under equality laws
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/hmrc-gives-trans-people-access-to-vip-hotline/
If he favours any given policy, probably the best thing he can do for its prospects with Labour is go away and shut up about it.
It is just passive aggression. "Now look what you made me do" while cheering on a mob setting fire to a hotel.
At this rate, despite being relegated, West Ham will be in Europe next season!