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.
Paying off the national debt Shirley? No doubt in saving up a windfall when you're simultaneously paying a ceippling mortgage.
"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:
I'm with @DavidL: I think Blair (and Tim Shipman) are completely missing the extent to which the US has changed.
Now, it may be that Trump goes in two years and we return to normal (or what counts as normal). But it is also entirely possible that the US's relationship with the world has changed. The old democratic, capitalist first world countries that America counted as their allies, and in turn, bought US arms and influence, have been cut adrift. And the old, rules based, order is disintigrating.
As a medium sized, open economy, dependent on foreign trader, this is not good news for us.
But it is a hell of a lot better to acknowledge reality than to stick our fingers in our ears, scrunch our eyes up, and sing 'nah nah nah' at the top of our voices.
There are plenty of lessons that can be learnt from Tony Blair’s legacy. For example, that privatisation has been disastrous and following the US into illegal wars is wrong.
But his latest “rare political intervention” - calling on the government to abandon net-zero, further privatise the NHS, deregulate Big Tech, and cosy up to Trump - shows that he hasn’t learnt any of them.
Whatever you think of Gordon Brown, his contributions after leaving office have been focused on trying to improve people’s lives. Tony Blair simply does the bidding of Silicon Valley billionaires and petrostates.
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.
Isn't that a bit problematic if it's humid, and you end up with condensation on your floor?
Plus, also, given that heat rises you generally want a cooling source high up and a heating source low down.
I see the sense in shutters, but there's something incredibly depressing about having to shut the sunlight out to prevent overheating.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
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?
"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:
I'm with @DavidL: I think Blair (and Tim Shipman) are completely missing the extent to which the US has changed.
Now, it may be that Trump goes in two years and we return to normal (or what counts as normal). But it is also entirely possible that the US's relationship with the world has changed. The old democratic, capitalist first world countries that America counted as their allies, and in turn, bought US arms and influence, have been cut adrift. And the old, rules based, order is disintigrating.
As a medium sized, open economy, dependent on foreign trader, this is not good news for us.
But it is a hell of a lot better to acknowledge reality than to stick our fingers in our ears, scrunch our eyes up, and sing 'nah nah nah' at the top of our voices.
America returning to normal is the central case. I think.
It's unfashionable to think so, which makes us doubt it.
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.
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.
Are you talking about the picture of his head accompanying his article? Why do you think it's new?
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.
Are you talking about the picture of his head accompanying his article? Why do you think it's new?
No the accompanying vid on X. Unless it's AI enhanced he looks different. Quite glam.
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.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
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.
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.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
My time management technique - just assume TeleMail and ilk 'stories' of this nature are false - is again vindicated.
"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:
I'm with @DavidL: I think Blair (and Tim Shipman) are completely missing the extent to which the US has changed.
Now, it may be that Trump goes in two years and we return to normal (or what counts as normal). But it is also entirely possible that the US's relationship with the world has changed. The old democratic, capitalist first world countries that America counted as their allies, and in turn, bought US arms and influence, have been cut adrift. And the old, rules based, order is disintigrating.
As a medium sized, open economy, dependent on foreign trader, this is not good news for us.
But it is a hell of a lot better to acknowledge reality than to stick our fingers in our ears, scrunch our eyes up, and sing 'nah nah nah' at the top of our voices.
America returning to normal is the central case. I think.
It's unfashionable to think so, which makes us doubt it.
Not too long to find out. First inkling from the midterms perhaps.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Well the left abused the wishy-washy centrism of the Coalition government as if it was a "far right" government. They also abused McCain and Romney as if they were fascists. So people were unable to distinguish the genuine far right because the left's abuse was constant.
Labour manage to win a rare landslide election victory just two years ago and have now decided to have a massive 'soul searching' internal debate about why the party even exists anymore with walk on parts from politicians who were in their pomp thirty years ago.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
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)?
A million cop tv shows have told us that it may harm our defence if we do not mention when questioned something we later try to rely on in court.
"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:
I'm with @DavidL: I think Blair (and Tim Shipman) are completely missing the extent to which the US has changed.
Now, it may be that Trump goes in two years and we return to normal (or what counts as normal). But it is also entirely possible that the US's relationship with the world has changed. The old democratic, capitalist first world countries that America counted as their allies, and in turn, bought US arms and influence, have been cut adrift. And the old, rules based, order is disintigrating.
As a medium sized, open economy, dependent on foreign trader, this is not good news for us.
But it is a hell of a lot better to acknowledge reality than to stick our fingers in our ears, scrunch our eyes up, and sing 'nah nah nah' at the top of our voices.
Quite so, tempting as that is. The political nature of the USA is very different from just 10 years ago. Trump is a big part of it, and a catalyst for more change, but there's been reactions to him on both sides, they no longer operate in the way they used to, and some things are now partisan when they didn't use to be particularly so, and some of those things are international matters - so any 'return' to normal can never be assured for the long term any more.
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.
Update on Isle of Wight Council and it appears they had a very exciting 19-19 tied vote*, with the Vice-Chair (a Conservative) using their casting vote for the incumbent Independent Chair.
*There's 39 councillors total, so with the chair out of the room they had a full attendance it seems. Their website shows 19 Reform councillors, so I guess everyone else voted against them.
"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:
I'm with @DavidL: I think Blair (and Tim Shipman) are completely missing the extent to which the US has changed.
Now, it may be that Trump goes in two years and we return to normal (or what counts as normal). But it is also entirely possible that the US's relationship with the world has changed. The old democratic, capitalist first world countries that America counted as their allies, and in turn, bought US arms and influence, have been cut adrift. And the old, rules based, order is disintigrating.
As a medium sized, open economy, dependent on foreign trader, this is not good news for us.
But it is a hell of a lot better to acknowledge reality than to stick our fingers in our ears, scrunch our eyes up, and sing 'nah nah nah' at the top of our voices.
Blair hasn't missed it. He is not that stupid. His Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft essay isn't a reflection of belief or call to praxis. It's just a statement of policy that serves the interests of his paymasters and therefore by extension his interests.
He doesn't believe in that destructive nonsense any more than the rest of us. Except Kemi and her pink cheeked (in both face and arse) altar boys on here.
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.
Really? He's very popular with the Members, unless he's getting a promotion he's pretty safe if he wants to stay in position?
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.
On the one hand the man who will buck national trends and save the Labour party from the moribund Cabinet that has been ruining them, and on the other the most disloyal member of that Cabinet. Tough choice.
Not my opinion of them, but I can see a lot of people going that way. Will Wes be able to get people to listen to him?
Labour manage to win a rare landslide election victory just two years ago and have now decided to have a massive 'soul searching' internal debate about why the party even exists anymore with walk on parts from politicians who were in their pomp thirty years ago.
I don't understand why Labour didn't bring in some truly radical policies after winning a 170 seat majority, like proportional representation, abolishing the House of Lords, getting rid of the triple lock, mandating that all new factories and warehouses should have solar panels on the roof. (I would have supported all of those).
Labour manage to win a rare landslide election victory just two years ago and have now decided to have a massive 'soul searching' internal debate about why the party even exists anymore with walk on parts from politicians who were in their pomp thirty years ago.
I don't understand why Labour didn't bring in some truly radical policies after winning a 170 seat majority, like proportional representation, abolishing the House of Lords, getting rid of the triple lock, mandating that all new factories and warehouses should have solar panels on the roof. (I would have supported all of those).
They did seem oddly tentative in a lot of ways, after getting burned by a big rebellion early on. Boris was also frit with his majority, just abandoning any hint of real planning reform after initial pushback when he could have at least revamped it, and not even touching social care after May dared to suggest something and got burned by it.
Perhaps no majority seems to provide true comfort to the modern political classes.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
What is still not equal, sex-at-birth-wise? The pension age is now equal...
Labour manage to win a rare landslide election victory just two years ago and have now decided to have a massive 'soul searching' internal debate about why the party even exists anymore with walk on parts from politicians who were in their pomp thirty years ago.
I don't understand why Labour didn't bring in some truly radical policies after winning a 170 seat majority, like proportional representation, abolishing the House of Lords, getting rid of the triple lock, mandating that all new factories and warehouses should have solar panels on the roof. (I would have supported all of those).
Erm, 'cos none of those were in the manifesto.
Did Starmer really need to spend the full four years he thought he had in a massive war with the House of Lords over its abolition without a mandate?
@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.
Well the left abused the wishy-washy centrism of the Coalition government as if it was a "far right" government. They also abused McCain and Romney as if they were fascists. So people were unable to distinguish the genuine far right because the left's abuse was constant.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
No, that's not what I said. I proposed everyone joins the same queue, then routed to the relevant person when at the top of the queue.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
No, that's not what I said. I proposed everyone joins the same queue, then routed to the relevant person when at the top of the queue.
The best option, if possible, is to fix the online system so no-one has to queue.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
No, that's not what I said. I proposed everyone joins the same queue, then routed to the relevant person when at the top of the queue.
And no doubt if we did that, the Telegraph would be printing an article tomorrow on how the Filthy Transgenders are now standing in the good, honest hetero queue with the rest of us, taking up space, slowing things down for us normal folks, when they should be in their own separate queue so they don't bother the rest of us.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
No, that's not what I said. I proposed everyone joins the same queue, then routed to the relevant person when at the top of the queue.
And no doubt if we did that, the Telegraph would be printing an article tomorrow on how the Filthy Transgenders are now standing in the good, honest hetero queue with the rest of us, taking up space, slowing things down for us normal folks, when they should be in their own separate queue so they don't bother the rest of us.
See how it works yet?
Huh? That wouldn't slow anyone down on the regular line as there would still be the same number of callers going to the same number of agents.
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.
Lord Mandelson advised numerous Cabinet ministers during his time as ambassador to Washington, messages to be released next week are expected to reveal.
The Telegraph understands that the disgraced peer often messaged senior Labour politicians and officials with suggestions on how to conduct official business far outside his remit as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
The messages are expected to be published next week alongside thousands of pages of material about his appointment, vetting and communications.
A source familiar with the messages said it would become clear that Lord Mandelson “thinks his opinion should be heard and listened to”, adding: “He’s definitely someone who offers advice.
“There is a certain generation of politician who thinks they have something to offer. He does that whether people want it or not.”
The messages are expected to include exchanges with Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, who is understood to have kept her conversations with Lord Mandelson to official channels, rather than on WhatsApp.
They will also show conversations between the peer and Peter Kyle, then serving as science secretary, about their joint visit to a global technology conference in California in March 2025.
@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.
Well the left abused the wishy-washy centrism of the Coalition government as if it was a "far right" government. They also abused McCain and Romney as if they were fascists. So people were unable to distinguish the genuine right because the left's abuse was constant.
Sure, but that's happened in both directions.
It's clearly the fault of the Conservatives, or at least the right of the Conservatives, first they stoked division over the EU presenting Brexit as the answer to the malcontents problems then they stoked tensions over immigration, slowed down processing resulting in asylum seekers in unsuitable accommodation for months on end and then the Boris wave, a group exploited by visa agents with many now stuck without work from their sponsor and unable to work for other employers. That their cynical exploitation of migration for electoral gain , stoking of tensions and incompetence in government has led to the rise of right wing populism and the collapse of their party is just reward.
Lord Mandelson advised numerous Cabinet ministers during his time as ambassador to Washington, messages to be released next week are expected to reveal.
The Telegraph understands that the disgraced peer often messaged senior Labour politicians and officials with suggestions on how to conduct official business far outside his remit as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
The messages are expected to be published next week alongside thousands of pages of material about his appointment, vetting and communications.
A source familiar with the messages said it would become clear that Lord Mandelson “thinks his opinion should be heard and listened to”, adding: “He’s definitely someone who offers advice.
“There is a certain generation of politician who thinks they have something to offer. He does that whether people want it or not.”
The messages are expected to include exchanges with Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, who is understood to have kept her conversations with Lord Mandelson to official channels, rather than on WhatsApp.
They will also show conversations between the peer and Peter Kyle, then serving as science secretary, about their joint visit to a global technology conference in California in March 2025.
Nick the Greek from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels had less fingers in less pies than Mandleson.
Lord Mandelson advised numerous Cabinet ministers during his time as ambassador to Washington, messages to be released next week are expected to reveal.
The Telegraph understands that the disgraced peer often messaged senior Labour politicians and officials with suggestions on how to conduct official business far outside his remit as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
The messages are expected to be published next week alongside thousands of pages of material about his appointment, vetting and communications.
A source familiar with the messages said it would become clear that Lord Mandelson “thinks his opinion should be heard and listened to”, adding: “He’s definitely someone who offers advice.
“There is a certain generation of politician who thinks they have something to offer. He does that whether people want it or not.”
The messages are expected to include exchanges with Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, who is understood to have kept her conversations with Lord Mandelson to official channels, rather than on WhatsApp.
They will also show conversations between the peer and Peter Kyle, then serving as science secretary, about their joint visit to a global technology conference in California in March 2025.
Nick the Greek from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels had less fingers in less pies than Mandleson.
“How much ink has been spilled, in recent months, on the matter of “Anglo-Gaullism”? Here he is, at last, le Général — and he was under our noses all along!”
@si_rubinstein makes the case for Tony Blair — as Britain’s next prime minister.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
No, that's not what I said. I proposed everyone joins the same queue, then routed to the relevant person when at the top of the queue.
And no doubt if we did that, the Telegraph would be printing an article tomorrow on how the Filthy Transgenders are now standing in the good, honest hetero queue with the rest of us, taking up space, slowing things down for us normal folks, when they should be in their own separate queue so they don't bother the rest of us.
See how it works yet?
Huh? That wouldn't slow anyone down on the regular line as there would still be the same number of callers going to the same number of agents.
If you sort everyone into the correct queue at the beginning of the queue it reduces total time spent queuing. Imagine a situation with a thousand agents servicing a thousand callers. You would not put them into a thousand-long queue.
This is the opposite of equality of course. Some people getting privileged treatment compared to everyone else.
I think the cure is to have the phone lines in toilets. That way nobody will be upset, no siree
(Next week: strapping a piece of toast butter-side-up to a cat. When you drop them off the table, they fall to the ground but rotate constantly before impact, eventually levitating)
“How much ink has been spilled, in recent months, on the matter of “Anglo-Gaullism”? Here he is, at last, le Général — and he was under our noses all along!”
@si_rubinstein makes the case for Tony Blair — as Britain’s next prime minister.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
No, that's not what I said. I proposed everyone joins the same queue, then routed to the relevant person when at the top of the queue.
And no doubt if we did that, the Telegraph would be printing an article tomorrow on how the Filthy Transgenders are now standing in the good, honest hetero queue with the rest of us, taking up space, slowing things down for us normal folks, when they should be in their own separate queue so they don't bother the rest of us.
See how it works yet?
Huh? That wouldn't slow anyone down on the regular line as there would still be the same number of callers going to the same number of agents.
If you sort everyone into the correct queue at the beginning of the queue it reduces total time spent queuing. Imagine a situation with a thousand agents servicing a thousand callers. You would not put them into a thousand-long queue.
And the thousand callers would immediately be allocated to the free agents. It’s not beyond our capabilities to have a system where everyone is treated roughly equally, regardless of what data the agent can or cannot see. And I’d apply this to MPs too, so that they can see how bad it is for the rest for us.
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.
Really? He's very popular with the Members, unless he's getting a promotion he's pretty safe if he wants to stay in position?
Kemi's very popular with members as was Corbyn. Lemmings need a leader.
The graph in that Telegraph article showing declining performance at the HMRC stops in .... 23/24.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
The solution is simple, wait in line with the rest of the plebs, then get routed to the VIP line once at the top.
So your “simple” solution is to funnel trans people into the general queue, thus making it even longer for the “plebs”, only for them to finally reach someone who says, “Sorry, we can’t help you. Your records are sealed under Section D, so you’ll need to call this other number instead.”
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
No, that's not what I said. I proposed everyone joins the same queue, then routed to the relevant person when at the top of the queue.
And no doubt if we did that, the Telegraph would be printing an article tomorrow on how the Filthy Transgenders are now standing in the good, honest hetero queue with the rest of us, taking up space, slowing things down for us normal folks, when they should be in their own separate queue so they don't bother the rest of us.
See how it works yet?
Huh? That wouldn't slow anyone down on the regular line as there would still be the same number of callers going to the same number of agents.
If you sort everyone into the correct queue at the beginning of the queue it reduces total time spent queuing. Imagine a situation with a thousand agents servicing a thousand callers. You would not put them into a thousand-long queue.
Tell that to the people that organise the check in at Stansted.
Update on Isle of Wight Council and it appears they had a very exciting 19-19 tied vote*, with the Vice-Chair (a Conservative) using their casting vote for the incumbent Independent Chair.
*There's 39 councillors total, so with the chair out of the room they had a full attendance it seems. Their website shows 19 Reform councillors, so I guess everyone else voted against them.
The vote for the chair is a bit misleading, as with Reform having 19 out of 39 councillors, all the other groups were clearly sensible to avoid handing Reform a casting vote on top. For the rest of the meeting, the anti-Reform rainbow alliance that this vote might have signalled, failed to materialise.
When the committee chair appointments were made, it became obvious that there has been some sort of a deal between Reform and the Independent Group - now calling themselves the Island First Network and comprising just six councillors but including some of those formerly cabinet members/committee chairs who have been administering the council prior. The IFN councillors kept their chair spots, and the other committees are all now chaired by Reform, the IFN taking it in turns to ‘lend’ Reform the extra vote they needed to defeat the opposing nominee from the Tory, LibDem or Green groups.
Reform didn’t put forward a leadership nominee, and the leadership went to another Independent councillor formerly of the IFN but who fell out with his colleagues when, as education cabinet member, he went to the wire on defending some local school closures only for his cabinet colleagues to get cold feet and pull the rug out from under him a few days before the crucial council meeting. Since both Reform and the IFN voted for the guy to become leader, one assumes there’s been some mending of relationships, but the new leader (who’s actually been leader before, way back) has chosen to sit outside all groups and ‘bring people together’. Good luck with that. His deputy is now one of the Reform guys.
On the upside, this Reform/Independent arrangement does at least command a majority, compared to the anticipated rainbow anti-Reform coalition with its majority of one. But it’s a potentially very flaky arrangement - and as someone who voted independent specifically to keep Reform out (and being far from alone in that), it’s not impressive that the re-elected independent councillors promptly sold themselves to Reform in return for keeping their special allowance payments.
Lord Mandelson advised numerous Cabinet ministers during his time as ambassador to Washington, messages to be released next week are expected to reveal.
The Telegraph understands that the disgraced peer often messaged senior Labour politicians and officials with suggestions on how to conduct official business far outside his remit as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
The messages are expected to be published next week alongside thousands of pages of material about his appointment, vetting and communications.
A source familiar with the messages said it would become clear that Lord Mandelson “thinks his opinion should be heard and listened to”, adding: “He’s definitely someone who offers advice.
“There is a certain generation of politician who thinks they have something to offer. He does that whether people want it or not.”
The messages are expected to include exchanges with Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, who is understood to have kept her conversations with Lord Mandelson to official channels, rather than on WhatsApp.
They will also show conversations between the peer and Peter Kyle, then serving as science secretary, about their joint visit to a global technology conference in California in March 2025.
Blair's hope that the Labour Party would learn to love Mandelson is just a reminder that Bambi is now a Grand Pooh Bah of the Lizard people. Quite amusing seeing the backlash against Blair's ill advised "we should obey the tech bros" manifesto Meanwhile John Major is turning his post political career into something close to Jimmy Carter levels of respect, despite also disapproving of his successors policies.
Labour manage to win a rare landslide election victory just two years ago and have now decided to have a massive 'soul searching' internal debate about why the party even exists anymore with walk on parts from politicians who were in their pomp thirty years ago.
I don't understand why Labour didn't bring in some truly radical policies after winning a 170 seat majority, like proportional representation, abolishing the House of Lords, getting rid of the triple lock, mandating that all new factories and warehouses should have solar panels on the roof. (I would have supported all of those).
They couldn’t even get through WFA change or modest changes to the rate of growth of the welfare bill, not even cutting it just slowing the growth rate.
Doing something truly radical would have been impossible.
Yesterday, saw a massive storm on the northerrn horizon traverse west to east. According to radar, it was 40-odd miles away near Cambridge and Sudbury way. No rain in east London, however!
Yesterday, saw a massive storm on the northerrn horizon traverse west to east. According to radar, it was 40-odd miles away near Cambridge and Sudbury way. No rain in east London, however!
London's such a dump even the rain won't visit 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.
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.
Yes, let us not forget in the 2015 Labour leadership election Starmer as a new MP backed Burnham over Corbyn, Cooper and Kendall.
I suspect if he is forced to resign Starmer on a forced choice would now vote for Burnham over Streeting, Burgon or Rayner (though the latter would now also likely back Burnham in the end)
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.
Yes, let us not forget in the 2015 Labour leadership election Starmer as a new MP backed Burnham over Corbyn, Cooper and Kendall.
I suspect if he is forced to resign Starmer on a forced choice would now vote for Burnham over Streeting, Burgon or Rayner (though the latter would now also likely back Burnham in the end)
Both Streeting and Rayner called for Burnham to be allowed to stand in Makerfield.
This is all orchestrated to have Burnham in post for the Conference.
On economics yes but socially even Jacob would recognise his fellow Roman Catholic Blair is way more liberal than he is on issues like formal recognition of same sex marriage and couples, abortion, Brexit etc and Blair also banned fox hunting while Jacob has fox hunt meets start at his mansion, even if Blair now says it should not have been a priority
OT - Cons bigger problem is that noone thinks they will win the next election so they face the issue generations of Lib Dems have. Pronouncing what you will do in power just makes you look ridiculous. The Lib Dems have worked out other ways to survive and operate. The Cons will have to do the same.
Comments
Now, it may be that Trump goes in two years and we return to normal (or what counts as normal). But it is also entirely possible that the US's relationship with the world has changed. The old democratic, capitalist first world countries that America counted as their allies, and in turn, bought US arms and influence, have been cut adrift. And the old, rules based, order is disintigrating.
As a medium sized, open economy, dependent on foreign trader, this is not good news for us.
But it is a hell of a lot better to acknowledge reality than to stick our fingers in our ears, scrunch our eyes up, and sing 'nah nah nah' at the top of our voices.
Nadia Whittome MP
@NadiaWhittomeMP
There are plenty of lessons that can be learnt from Tony Blair’s legacy. For example, that privatisation has been disastrous and following the US into illegal wars is wrong.
But his latest “rare political intervention” - calling on the government to abandon net-zero, further privatise the NHS, deregulate Big Tech, and cosy up to Trump - shows that he hasn’t learnt any of them.
Whatever you think of Gordon Brown, his contributions after leaving office have been focused on trying to improve people’s lives. Tony Blair simply does the bidding of Silicon Valley billionaires and petrostates.
https://x.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/2059652848107798645
Plus, also, given that heat rises you generally want a cooling source high up and a heating source low down.
I see the sense in shutters, but there's something incredibly depressing about having to shut the sunlight out to prevent overheating.
And the arrangement for trans people has been in place for more than 20 years. The "look at what happened" outrage headline is a little misleading - unless you read it in one very particular sense:
Those who change gender have received access to PD1 since around 2005 ...
Full article gift link:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/f9600581a9eb7177
It's unfashionable to think so, which makes us doubt it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/27/tony-blair-labour-wes-streeting-markets-democracy
https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/andy-burnham-slams-tony-blair-for-ignoring-inequality-in-his-defence-of-radical-centre
Trans people, particularly those with a GRC, have been allowed to use "Special Section D" since the Gender Recognition Act (2004) came into force. This is because the GRC changes your legal sex "for all purposes" meaning that an employer has no right to know your sex at birth due to article 8 right privacy, but HMRC still need to know your sex at birth due to various carve outs from "for all purposes" for pensions etc.
This means that trans peoples records are essentially sealed from the time they are issued a GRC, so they cannot be "outed" to their employer (as this would be illegal). It has nothing to do with them "being given preferential treatment" or "getting through to a helpdesk quicker". IIRC it was actually a disadvantage for a time as you couldn't submit an online tax return if you have to submit one, you had to do everything by paper, making it a nightmare if you were self employed or ran a business, but that may have changed in recent years.
The Telegraph's article is extreme clickbait brainrot rage bait rot and should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but that's sort of like saying water is wet, isn't it? Sadly Brandolini's law once again applies.
But thank you.
https://x.com/wesstreeting/status/2059632154888298798
Definitely a bit more quiff.
It's a triumph.
They also abused McCain and Romney as if they were fascists.
So people were unable to distinguish the genuine far right because the left's abuse was constant.
Labour manage to win a rare landslide election victory just two years ago and have now decided to have a massive 'soul searching' internal debate about why the party even exists anymore with walk on parts from politicians who were in their pomp thirty years ago.
The problem with Restore is that just because people don’t want to vote for them, it doesn’t mean they hate the country.
https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/26144340.isle-wight-council-chair-re-elected-tied-vote/
*There's 39 councillors total, so with the chair out of the room they had a full attendance it seems. Their website shows 19 Reform councillors, so I guess everyone else voted against them.
He doesn't believe in that destructive nonsense any more than the rest of us. Except Kemi and her pink cheeked (in both face and arse) altar boys on here.
Also, Iraq.
Not my opinion of them, but I can see a lot of people going that way. Will Wes be able to get people to listen to him?
Perhaps no majority seems to provide true comfort to the modern political classes.
Did Starmer really need to spend the full four years he thought he had in a massive war with the House of Lords over its abolition without a mandate?
So now they get the privilege of waiting in two queues, rather than just being directed to the correct department in the first place... the one specifically set up to handle records sealed by law under the 2004 GRA.
It’s a view, as they say. It's a view.
I appreciate this is hard, though.
See how it works yet?
In tomorrow’s @Telegraph:
Lord Mandelson advised numerous Cabinet ministers during his time as ambassador to Washington, messages to be released next week are expected to reveal.
The Telegraph understands that the disgraced peer often messaged senior Labour politicians and officials with suggestions on how to conduct official business far outside his remit as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
The messages are expected to be published next week alongside thousands of pages of material about his appointment, vetting and communications.
A source familiar with the messages said it would become clear that Lord Mandelson “thinks his opinion should be heard and listened to”, adding: “He’s definitely someone who offers advice.
“There is a certain generation of politician who thinks they have something to offer. He does that whether people want it or not.”
The messages are expected to include exchanges with Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, who is understood to have kept her conversations with Lord Mandelson to official channels, rather than on WhatsApp.
They will also show conversations between the peer and Peter Kyle, then serving as science secretary, about their joint visit to a global technology conference in California in March 2025.
That their cynical exploitation of migration for electoral gain , stoking of tensions and incompetence in government has led to the rise of right wing populism and the collapse of their party is just reward.
Actually there is betting on that. JB's club after the window closes: 6/5 West Ham; 7/2 Newcastle; 4/1 Villa; 10/1 bar. Bet365. 8/1 at BetVictor according to Oddschecker.
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/jarrod-bowen/club-after-summer-transfer-window
Mind you, what's going on manager-wise?
“How much ink has been spilled, in recent months, on the matter of “Anglo-Gaullism”? Here he is, at last, le Général — and he was under our noses all along!”
@si_rubinstein makes the case for Tony Blair — as Britain’s next prime minister.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/hmrc-gives-trans-people-access-to-vip-hotline/ (£££)
So under equality laws, trans people's identity must be kept secret by HMRC but must be broadcast at every visit to the loo. What a mess!
(Next week: strapping a piece of toast butter-side-up to a cat. When you drop them off the table, they fall to the ground but rotate constantly before impact, eventually levitating)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxpdqvdyz7o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxpdqvdyz7o
https://x.com/tito/status/2059649755710468320
A pretty clear demonstration of the need for a continental electricity market, and more interconnects.
When the committee chair appointments were made, it became obvious that there has been some sort of a deal between Reform and the Independent Group - now calling themselves the Island First Network and comprising just six councillors but including some of those formerly cabinet members/committee chairs who have been administering the council prior. The IFN councillors kept their chair spots, and the other committees are all now chaired by Reform, the IFN taking it in turns to ‘lend’ Reform the extra vote they needed to defeat the opposing nominee from the Tory, LibDem or Green groups.
Reform didn’t put forward a leadership nominee, and the leadership went to another Independent councillor formerly of the IFN but who fell out with his colleagues when, as education cabinet member, he went to the wire on defending some local school closures only for his cabinet colleagues to get cold feet and pull the rug out from under him a few days before the crucial council meeting. Since both Reform and the IFN voted for the guy to become leader, one assumes there’s been some mending of relationships, but the new leader (who’s actually been leader before, way back) has chosen to sit outside all groups and ‘bring people together’. Good luck with that. His deputy is now one of the Reform guys.
On the upside, this Reform/Independent arrangement does at least command a majority, compared to the anticipated rainbow anti-Reform coalition with its majority of one. But it’s a potentially very flaky arrangement - and as someone who voted independent specifically to keep Reform out (and being far from alone in that), it’s not impressive that the re-elected independent councillors promptly sold themselves to Reform in return for keeping their special allowance payments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPIqPdL9fME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPIqPdL9fME
Meanwhile John Major is turning his post political career into something close to Jimmy Carter levels of respect, despite also disapproving of his successors policies.
Honouring Harambe !!
https://x.com/whitehouse/status/2059779450275864710?s=61
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harambe
Doing something truly radical would have been impossible.
Managing this lot must be like herding cats.
Currently raining.
Probably won't last though.
*puts hands in pockets and whistles quietly*
Exclusive: Vetting officials also flagged £1m loan when recommending he should be denied security clearance
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/27/mandelson-vetting-warned-ties-senior-figures-china-russia-israel
How much of this was new though?
I suspect if he is forced to resign Starmer on a forced choice would now vote for Burnham over Streeting, Burgon or Rayner (though the latter would now also likely back Burnham in the end)
This is all orchestrated to have Burnham in post for the Conference.
Thunder and lightning here. Had fairly brief but heavy rainfall overnight.
NEW THREAD