More than the Prime Minister but less than an Olympic swimming pool.
And who seriously believes that Farage will give up all of his 10 jobs for that salary?
Unless he awards himself a million quid a year pay rise on day 1
He’s a disruptor. He’s there to disrupt the mainstream and establishment although he’s a part of it.
The moment he becomes that which he seeks to destroy the game is up, the fun is over.
He’s also surplus to requirements.
Agreed with your first two points, not so sure about the third.
Farage is absolutely vital to the project; noone else works as its figurehead. Tice is a nobody, Jenrick is too obviously a Tory with career disappointment, Yusuf too much an internet troll.
My hunch is that, if presented with an opportunity for actual responsibility, Farage will run away, much as he did in 2016 and 2019. He just needs an excuse.
I think Farage absolutely wants to be PM, because he wants the establishment to be forced to accept him as a member.
When KCIII dies Farage wants to be one of the people in the Accession Council. He wants to be in the room grinning rather than watching it on TV.
As to whether he genuinely wants to be PM for x years and try to pass legislation and deal with the budget I don't know. Given the way Trump is acting I think it is touchingly naive that some PBers believe Farage will be bound by existing rules and norms about a PM giving up external sources of income.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
Yes, though it is a political truism on PB that the Triple Lock and WFA must go, this polls very badly, even with the young.
A large part of the problem is that few in Britain understand where governments spend money.
Time for politicians to educate them, rather than pandering to them, then. Doing the latter only sets them up for failure every time they're in government, which is one reason they're held in such low esteem.
I can't say I have much hope of Burnham on that score.
In that very important respect Burnham represents continuity, rather than the change he - like everyone else - promises, but cannot deliver.
I just don't think Britain has the fiscal room to manoeuvre for politicians to be able to make meaningful change while not confronting the voters with economic reality.
Until a political leader grasps the vital task of speaking truth to the voters the situation in Britain will continue to deteriorate.
Taking the most recent data point, in a council by-election on Thursday, the Tories were on the receiving end of a drubbing, falling from 1st to 3rd behind Reform and Labour.
The Kemigasm is not being translated into votes.
I have a theory about the Kemigasm. I've been hearing in various places how well Kemi is performing not least on here though I myself haven't seen or felt it. She seems to be sailing along midstream rather like Ed Davey. And that is what the polls show her to be doing.
So where is the Kemigasm coming from?
My guess is they have a new PR on the job and their instruction is to build up Kemi. That's what PR does. Choose a selling point and then go hard on it. It's not something I would notice not being someone who receives Tory mail or appeals.
.......but I heard someone on Any Questions yesterday and they were very obviously bigging up Kemi rather tandentially to the subject. Putting forward the things she had personally been involved in that I knew nothing about. It would explain the disconnect between the polls and the reality.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Meanwhile, on this warm sunny morning in Germany, today’s Rawnsley:
The leader of Reform is…beginning to look a bit desperate. He had been flirting with trying to present his party as one maturing into “respectability” in an effort to persuade voters who are Reform-curious but queasy about racism and extremism that they no longer have anything to worry about. So what explains his ugly turn towards the politics of racial paranoia? Panic is probably the best answer.
Reform still leads all other parties, but any deflation of its bubble is disconcerting for a leader who has prized momentum as the definition of success. Usually inescapable at byelections, he has been largely absent from the contest for Makerfield, where he might be exposed to questions about that [£5 million] donation.
Also troubling to him is the durability of the Conservative party. The Tories are not exactly in fabulous shape, but they are resolutely refusing to concede to Mr Farage’s demand to be recognised as the undisputed master of the right in British politics. Defections from the Conservatives, much fanfared at the time, have caused more strife for Reform than they have trouble for the Tories.
What matters to Mr Farage is that he is threatened by a new competitor he hadn’t expected. After a quarter of a century menacing the Tories from the right, now there is a fireship aimed at his own party from the even further right. If you think relations between Reform and the Conservatives are bad, those between Reform and Restore are ferocious.
For those of us watching from a safe distance, there is a temptation to smile at this cage fight on the extremes of the right. But there is also a disturbing dimension to the grim grapple over who can be the most nasty party of the right. If this grisly competition has so little respect for the wishes of a grieving family, you can be sure it has absolutely none for the rest of us.
Empty waffle. No more insightful than political Twitter.
It’s hardly a Damascene revelation that relations between Reform and Restore are less than cordial.
Reform are also holding/gaining slightly in the polls.
I don't think pooh-poohing Rawnsley's argument here works, either as thesis or as tactic.
The fact that the Tories have not collapsed, despite figures such as Jenrick walking out is, I think, pretty significant. The defections have helped the Tories by getting rid of an overly ambitions and disloyal crew, but have weakened the RefUK "insurgency" brand. The polls are not demonstrating the kind of momentum that could lead RefUK to any kind of power, and may have already turned over. Even more problematic, increasingly Farage is being challenged on the dodgy donations, his closeness to Trump and the question of what he got for mouthing Putin propaganda over Ukraine- and this is defintely cutting through. If the punters are right, Farage will win nothing in the three by-elections and may even see the Tories snatch an unexpected victory in Aberdeen South, which seriously challenges the idea that the right should unite under his questionable leadership.
This could be the beginning of a slow puncture for RefUK which takes them out of the game.
Rawnsley has been phoning it in for a while now
The Tories have gone backwards. I think Kemi is doing a decent job but I’m not the target audience and never likely to vote for them. They’re not gaining or moving forward in the polls
Yet. It’s going to be a long haul but undeniably Badenoch* is the least unpopular leader of the main parties.
*How much do I love that her name is essentially Bad Enoch (as in Powell). Far too much.
Kemi’s problem is that although she isn’t personally unpopular, her party still are, and it’s going to take a few more years for that to change.
That might also be Nigel Farage's problem – that Kemi's party is unpopular and Reform is top-heavy with Tory retreads.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
I still think the WFA changes were perfectly fine but I accept they communicated it horrendously and perhaps there is no way to do this policy that doesn’t tank your popularity.
Supposedly Osborne and Cameron were also given this policy as an option and vetoed it. That shows they have a lot more political ability than Starmer and Reeves.
Trouble is that we've had about forty years of society elevating politics over government, which is the underlyreason for all of this.
And I'm not entirely sure what we do about it. Politicians explaining the situation and their solutions, clearly and compellingly, would be a start... But they would still need a way to reach the national audience and an audience prepared to listen.
Neither of those things really exists right now. It's more comforting to believe that, if we punish Bad People X, it will all be fine- we just have to work out who X are, and that's fun. If a politician comes along saying "it's more complicated than that" (was Rory the ex-Tory the last one to try?), they don't get far.
And whilst there's a market for talking things though properly, it's niche rather than mass. The days of ten million people watching the News at Ten are long gone.
One of the things about the present moment is that it's an ideal time to take a risk on an unusual message. You don't need to convince 45% of the voters to win the election. If you can convince 25% you have a pretty good chance of making it to largest party status.
At the same time, with five major parties in England, and then the Nationalists, a distinctive message is needed to gain attention, and to try to draw a dividing line between you being the answer, and everyone else being different variations of the problem.
Taking the most recent data point, in a council by-election on Thursday, the Tories were on the receiving end of a drubbing, falling from 1st to 3rd behind Reform and Labour.
The Kemigasm is not being translated into votes.
I have a theory about the Kemigasm. I've been hearing in various places how well Kemi is performing not least on here though I myself haven't seen or felt it. She seems to be sailing along midstream rather like Ed Davey. And that is what the polls show her to be doing.
I used to think KB was a stone cold loser. Indeed, on this very site I likened her, both in personality and appearance, to a 45 gallon drum that had rolled through a branch of SpecSavers.
However, she does seem to able to inculcate fanatical loyalty and enthusiasm, not least on here, despite fucking miserable polls and actual election results. That's a great political gift so maybe she does have a future.
17% in the polls and some tories on here would chop their dicks off if she asked them. That's political heft. They also rerun the Corbynite line of "nobody else would do any better" so things could go the other way...
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
She has appealed her convictions, but all her appeals were rejected. The Court concluded in her main appeal that the trial had been "thoughtful, fair, comprehensive and correct" and that none of the challenges raised by the defence were "arguable".
She’s now sent her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who could order another appeal be heard. We await their response.
Given the state of maternity care in England we will no doubt hear in 15-20 years that it is a monumental injustice and was in fact a cover up of incompetence and butt covering.
Meanwhile, on this warm sunny morning in Germany, today’s Rawnsley:
The leader of Reform is…beginning to look a bit desperate. He had been flirting with trying to present his party as one maturing into “respectability” in an effort to persuade voters who are Reform-curious but queasy about racism and extremism that they no longer have anything to worry about. So what explains his ugly turn towards the politics of racial paranoia? Panic is probably the best answer.
Reform still leads all other parties, but any deflation of its bubble is disconcerting for a leader who has prized momentum as the definition of success. Usually inescapable at byelections, he has been largely absent from the contest for Makerfield, where he might be exposed to questions about that [£5 million] donation.
Also troubling to him is the durability of the Conservative party. The Tories are not exactly in fabulous shape, but they are resolutely refusing to concede to Mr Farage’s demand to be recognised as the undisputed master of the right in British politics. Defections from the Conservatives, much fanfared at the time, have caused more strife for Reform than they have trouble for the Tories.
What matters to Mr Farage is that he is threatened by a new competitor he hadn’t expected. After a quarter of a century menacing the Tories from the right, now there is a fireship aimed at his own party from the even further right. If you think relations between Reform and the Conservatives are bad, those between Reform and Restore are ferocious.
For those of us watching from a safe distance, there is a temptation to smile at this cage fight on the extremes of the right. But there is also a disturbing dimension to the grim grapple over who can be the most nasty party of the right. If this grisly competition has so little respect for the wishes of a grieving family, you can be sure it has absolutely none for the rest of us.
Empty waffle. No more insightful than political Twitter.
It’s hardly a Damascene revelation that relations between Reform and Restore are less than cordial.
Reform are also holding/gaining slightly in the polls.
I don't think pooh-poohing Rawnsley's argument here works, either as thesis or as tactic.
The fact that the Tories have not collapsed, despite figures such as Jenrick walking out is, I think, pretty significant. The defections have helped the Tories by getting rid of an overly ambitions and disloyal crew, but have weakened the RefUK "insurgency" brand. The polls are not demonstrating the kind of momentum that could lead RefUK to any kind of power, and may have already turned over. Even more problematic, increasingly Farage is being challenged on the dodgy donations, his closeness to Trump and the question of what he got for mouthing Putin propaganda over Ukraine- and this is defintely cutting through. If the punters are right, Farage will win nothing in the three by-elections and may even see the Tories snatch an unexpected victory in Aberdeen South, which seriously challenges the idea that the right should unite under his questionable leadership.
This could be the beginning of a slow puncture for RefUK which takes them out of the game.
Rawnsley has been phoning it in for a while now
The Tories have gone backwards. I think Kemi is doing a decent job but I’m not the target audience and never likely to vote for them. They’re not gaining or moving forward in the polls
Yet. It’s going to be a long haul but undeniably Badenoch* is the least unpopular leader of the main parties.
*How much do I love that her name is essentially Bad Enoch (as in Powell). Far too much.
Kemi’s problem is that although she isn’t personally unpopular, her party still are, and it’s going to take a few more years for that to change.
That might also be Nigel Farage's problem – that Kemi's party is unpopular and Reform is top-heavy with Tory retreads.
We are doing a lot of dissection of 'Nigel's problem' at present. Last polls I've seen Reform is still leading and is gaining. I think a lot of parties would like a share of this problem.
On the specific point about Tory re-treads, I've seen a lot of vox pops with people worrying about or critical of Reform, but all the criticism focuses on Nigel. I've seen absolutely unprompted negativity about Suella and Jenrick joining. The person it seems to have upset most is Zia Yusuf.
Taking the most recent data point, in a council by-election on Thursday, the Tories were on the receiving end of a drubbing, falling from 1st to 3rd behind Reform and Labour.
The Kemigasm is not being translated into votes.
According to some commentary on the by election, the Tories fielded an 18 yr old, while Reform's candidate is the former mayor. Suggests a hollowing out of the local party organisation.
The council by-elections still show that Reform remain strong on the insurgency front, partic the red wall, and the Tories struggling in many parts of the country. So still a very big job for Kemi to turn it round.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't does not explain recent spending initiatives targeted at the young. Does grandma get leftovers from free breakfast clubs or time off babysitting because we give free childcare to couples earning up to £200,000 a year?
Taking the most recent data point, in a council by-election on Thursday, the Tories were on the receiving end of a drubbing, falling from 1st to 3rd behind Reform and Labour.
The Kemigasm is not being translated into votes.
I have a theory about the Kemigasm. I've been hearing in various places how well Kemi is performing not least on here though I myself haven't seen or felt it. She seems to be sailing along midstream rather like Ed Davey. And that is what the polls show her to be doing.
I used to think KB was a stone cold loser. Indeed, on this very site I likened her, both in personality and appearance, to a 45 gallon drum that had rolled through a branch of SpecSavers.
However, she does seem to able to inculcate fanatical loyalty and enthusiasm, not least on here, despite fucking miserable polls and actual election results. That's a great political gift so maybe she does have a future.
17% in the polls and some tories on here would chop their dicks off if she asked them. That's political heft. They also rerun the Corbynite line of "nobody else would do any better" so things could go the other way...
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Good morning
Our grandchildren have learned that what goes on in grandma's house stays in grandma's house and maybe why they love visiting her
And listening to Yusaf on Kuenssberg will someone make him go away
He and Farage are simply nasty and no matter whatever happens, I do not want a reform government
Taking the most recent data point, in a council by-election on Thursday, the Tories were on the receiving end of a drubbing, falling from 1st to 3rd behind Reform and Labour.
The Kemigasm is not being translated into votes.
I have a theory about the Kemigasm. I've been hearing in various places how well Kemi is performing not least on here though I myself haven't seen or felt it. She seems to be sailing along midstream rather like Ed Davey. And that is what the polls show her to be doing.
I used to think KB was a stone cold loser. Indeed, on this very site I likened her, both in personality and appearance, to a 45 gallon drum that had rolled through a branch of SpecSavers.
However, she does seem to able to inculcate fanatical loyalty and enthusiasm, not least on here, despite fucking miserable polls and actual election results. That's a great political gift so maybe she does have a future.
17% in the polls and some tories on here would chop their dicks off if she asked them. That's political heft. They also rerun the Corbynite line of "nobody else would do any better" so things could go the other way...
She's got a favourable media desperate to shore tge Tories up.
The Front Bench has to be the worst Tory Front Bench in Government or Opposition in history
The one Nation sensible centrist Tories are clearly content to bide their time and not play their hand too early.
No point appointmenting a new leader if Labour are about to change. If Labour do change in Autumn 2026,anyone with a political brain in the Tory Party will wait a year
Badenoch cannot win a GE, that is crystal clear, she can't finish higher than 3rd, quite probable 4th on seats on current polling as LD stack up large numbers in current and past Tory areas.
She's got the most unappealing and unempathetic of personalities and in the white heat of a GE her ability to argue with everyone would be disastrous for the Tories.
She's less a cult than a sticking plaster and the wankfest really is nothing more than desperate trolling.
It could be worse, I'll grant her that, it could be Priiti, it could have been Jenrick or Suella but it will have to be a far more unifying or empathetic person to give them any hope at all
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Good morning
Our grandchildren have learned that what goes on in grandma's house stays in grandma's house and maybe why they love visiting her
And listening to Yusaf on Kuenssberg will someone make him go away
He and Farage are simply nasty and no matter whatever happens, I do not want a reform government
A policy I shall apply to my grandson.
As to a Reform government no one rational wants that but that is not the extent of the problem. We have no problem at all saying what government we don't want. Getting a government we do want is proving a lot trickier.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Good morning
Our grandchildren have learned that what goes on in grandma's house stays in grandma's house and maybe why they love visiting her
And listening to Yusaf on Kuenssberg will someone make him go away
He and Farage are simply nasty and no matter whatever happens, I do not want a reform government
And Good Morning to you nd indeed all fellow pb-ers.
You and me both, Mr G; whatever we've felt about the governments we've seen elected over the years, none of it compares with what we feel about the prospect of a Reform government.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't does not explain recent spending initiatives targeted at the young. Does grandma get leftovers from free breakfast clubs or time off babysitting because we give free childcare to couples earning up to £200,000 a year?
Its not entirely a one way street and these breakfast clubs are probably taking some of the pressure off some grandmas. But the triple lock, additional tax relief, the relief from NI contributions, free TV licences, and of course our very generous offsets for pension contributions all favour the more mature in our society. The young are getting a very raw deal at the moment.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Good morning
Our grandchildren have learned that what goes on in grandma's house stays in grandma's house and maybe why they love visiting her
And listening to Yusaf on Kuenssberg will someone make him go away
He and Farage are simply nasty and no matter whatever happens, I do not want a reform government
A policy I shall apply to my grandson.
As to a Reform government no one rational wants that but that is not the extent of the problem. We have no problem at all saying what government we don't want. Getting a government we do want is proving a lot trickier.
It's it quite amusing listening to our grandchildren when they are here alone with freedoms to do whatever they want, eat and drink what they want, but not alcohol, and talk freely
Taking the most recent data point, in a council by-election on Thursday, the Tories were on the receiving end of a drubbing, falling from 1st to 3rd behind Reform and Labour.
The Kemigasm is not being translated into votes.
I have a theory about the Kemigasm. I've been hearing in various places how well Kemi is performing not least on here though I myself haven't seen or felt it. She seems to be sailing along midstream rather like Ed Davey. And that is what the polls show her to be doing.
I used to think KB was a stone cold loser. Indeed, on this very site I likened her, both in personality and appearance, to a 45 gallon drum that had rolled through a branch of SpecSavers.
However, she does seem to able to inculcate fanatical loyalty and enthusiasm, not least on here, despite fucking miserable polls and actual election results. That's a great political gift so maybe she does have a future.
17% in the polls and some tories on here would chop their dicks off if she asked them. That's political heft. They also rerun the Corbynite line of "nobody else would do any better" so things could go the other way...
The Corbynite line turned out to be true.
I think Corbyn could have made a far bigger mess of being PM than Starmer, I suspect that's an overwhelming majority view.
It seems that the Hampshire plods attempted to libel a murder victim:
An initial police statement later that morning said: “It was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man.”
The Nowak family, raw with grief, became concerned that a false narrative was being pushed about their son. It is understood that police told the family the next update they planned to publish, which would include the Nowaks’ tribute, would again imply that he was the initial aggressor.
Officers dropped that section of the statement, which only referred to an “altercation” when published.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Good morning
Our grandchildren have learned that what goes on in grandma's house stays in grandma's house and maybe why they love visiting her
And listening to Yusaf on Kuenssberg will someone make him go away
He and Farage are simply nasty and no matter whatever happens, I do not want a reform government
And Good Morning to you nd indeed all fellow pb-ers.
You and me both, Mr G; whatever we've felt about the governments we've seen elected over the years, none of it compares with what we feel about the prospect of a Reform government.
Absolutely and it is part of why I support Kemi and wish her well as she stands for the centre right to overhaul Farage by GE29
Taking the most recent data point, in a council by-election on Thursday, the Tories were on the receiving end of a drubbing, falling from 1st to 3rd behind Reform and Labour.
The Kemigasm is not being translated into votes.
I have a theory about the Kemigasm. I've been hearing in various places how well Kemi is performing not least on here though I myself haven't seen or felt it. She seems to be sailing along midstream rather like Ed Davey. And that is what the polls show her to be doing.
I used to think KB was a stone cold loser. Indeed, on this very site I likened her, both in personality and appearance, to a 45 gallon drum that had rolled through a branch of SpecSavers.
However, she does seem to able to inculcate fanatical loyalty and enthusiasm, not least on here, despite fucking miserable polls and actual election results. That's a great political gift so maybe she does have a future.
17% in the polls and some tories on here would chop their dicks off if she asked them. That's political heft. They also rerun the Corbynite line of "nobody else would do any better" so things could go the other way...
She's got a favourable media desperate to shore tge Tories up.
The Front Bench has to be the worst Tory Front Bench in Government or Opposition in history
The one Nation sensible centrist Tories are clearly content to bide their time and not play their hand too early.
No point appointmenting a new leader if Labour are about to change. If Labour do change in Autumn 2026,anyone with a political brain in the Tory Party will wait a year
Badenoch cannot win a GE, that is crystal clear, she can't finish higher than 3rd, quite probable 4th on seats on current polling as LD stack up large numbers in current and past Tory areas.
She's got the most unappealing and unempathetic of personalities and in the white heat of a GE her ability to argue with everyone would be disastrous for the Tories.
She's less a cult than a sticking plaster and the wankfest really is nothing more than desperate trolling.
It could be worse, I'll grant her that, it could be Priiti, it could have been Jenrick or Suella but it will have to be a far more unifying or empathetic person to give them any hope at all
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
Pass. I'm a bit rusty.
What's happening with Letby anyway? Is there a chance of a retrial? Or is it all just amateur punditry now?
She has appealed her convictions, but all her appeals were rejected. The Court concluded in her main appeal that the trial had been "thoughtful, fair, comprehensive and correct" and that none of the challenges raised by the defence were "arguable".
She’s now sent her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who could order another appeal be heard. We await their response.
Given the state of maternity care in England we will no doubt hear in 15-20 years that it is a monumental injustice and was in fact a cover up of incompetence and butt covering.
I don't think anybody disputes the latter point. Their safeguarding procedures were more amateurish and the coverups of blatant and serious problems more egregious than those of OFSTED under that lunatic Spielman.
The question is, was it an injustice? At the moment I'm personally inclined to think it probably wasn't, but they can happen.
There are massive failures in Maternity care in the UK. The one up the road from me at Nottingham is quite shocking.
But these are very different to problems on neonatal units such as the one Letby worked at. The babies that suddenly died in her care were often nearly ready for discharge when they suddenly and mysteriously deteriated.
Do not forget that as well as the deaths there are a large number of near misees resulting in lifelong disability. The Baby K story is typical with her standing over a deteriorating baby doing nothing with the alarms turned off.
The idea that somehow she was the scapegoat to cover up for unit failures is risible. A murderer on the loose is far worse for unit reputation than a string of preventable deaths. The hospital management famously pushed concerns away rather than deal with real concerns:
Just as @bondegezou suggest some are influenced by the defence team press release so this is the prosecution version of events. It has been challenged that these babies were all healthy and doing well before a sudden decline. It’s also not true that a doctor found Letby ignoring a deteriorating baby - his contemporaneous notes said something different to his words in court.
Why then did Letby not deny his version events in court?
She didn't contest it, she claimed it was unit policy to watch a hypoxic baby to see if they spontaneously recovered, which confirm's the Doctors story. She didn't substantiate the claim that this was policy* with either written policy documents or confirmation by other staff.
*such a "policy" is clearly ludicrous. At the very least it merits checking the tube to see if it is misplaced, or calling for assistance.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Good morning
Our grandchildren have learned that what goes on in grandma's house stays in grandma's house and maybe why they love visiting her
And listening to Yusaf on Kuenssberg will someone make him go away
He and Farage are simply nasty and no matter whatever happens, I do not want a reform government
And Good Morning to you nd indeed all fellow pb-ers.
You and me both, Mr G; whatever we've felt about the governments we've seen elected over the years, none of it compares with what we feel about the prospect of a Reform government.
Totally in agreement with you on this.
What makes Yusuf more dangerous than Farage is the fact he's never been elected by anyone to anything, but can be openly welcomed by MSM as some sort of credible spokesperson.
It's a very very dark road we are going down here.
Farage may well a notion to have a Cabinet full of Yusufs
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't does not explain recent spending initiatives targeted at the young. Does grandma get leftovers from free breakfast clubs or time off babysitting because we give free childcare to couples earning up to £200,000 a year?
Its not entirely a one way street and these breakfast clubs are probably taking some of the pressure off some grandmas. But the triple lock, additional tax relief, the relief from NI contributions, free TV licences, and of course our very generous offsets for pension contributions all favour the more mature in our society. The young are getting a very raw deal at the moment.
For standard rate taxpayers the tax benefits for pensions aren't that generous.
The big gainers are those who:
Pay higher rate while working and standard rate while retired. Able to make use of salary sacrifice. Receive a substantial employers contribution.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
And when they do, their vote is informed by a generational echo chamber which thinks it unfair and pettifogging for the government to be taking money from Grandma when they should be going after the 'genuinely wealthy'.
I think Badenoch will benefit a lot when the Reform implosion comes, assuming it does.
Well of course, but the question is how and when that might happen, and the Lib Dems are pulling their socks up too. The Tugendhat tendency will need to pick their moment extremely carefully.
As always, the problem comes with those trying to offer anything approaching constructive criticism.
The partisans don't want to hear or listen and often seek to shut down or denigrate those doing the criticising (and I've been as guilty of it in the past) but viewing it from the outside can give an alternative perspective to the hero-worship.
It seems sometimes on here any criticism of Badenoch is to be closed down - that would be unfair. I'm sure she'd be the first to admit nobody is perfect and for all @Brixian59's comments there are a few grains worth considering.
I'm no Conservative but to me she comes over occasionally as hectoring and aggressive - confident (perhaps over confident) in the validity of her position. She will have to talk to non-Conservatives to win and while she did do well this week the record of the Government of which she was a prominent and senior member is like a shadow or millstone (depending on your perspective) but either way she can no more pretend the country's problems began on July 5th 2024 than Labour in the past tried to pretend everything went wrong in 1979.
As for Farage, having attended the same school but not quite at the same time, I recognise him as a product of the 1970s which were a difficult and divisive time. Yusuf and Kruger are trying to provide some intellectual heft to Reform but that misses the point. Reform is by definition an emotional response to the perceived (and sometimes actual) problems of the day and as is often the case in populism, predicated on blaming someone else.
Britain is going to the dogs (well, some went to Towcester yesterday evening) and it's everyone else's fault and we'll do something about it. That essentially is Reform and Restore is a less nuanced version of that.
Whether you call them "the Uniparty" or not, the established parties, while apparently suffocating in the stench of their own failure, also realise most problems don't have easy solutions, the issues are nuanced and complex and often impact on other areas.
If I had to live in Germany’s I’d give Freiburg serious consideration. There’s a pleasant, relaxed, feel about it, there’s quite a lot going on, and like my own home town it has the sunniest weather in its country. And of course there is a stack of other countries just a few hours drive away, as well as Black Forest scenery and villages nearby. The old square around the cathedral is pleasant and lively, although most of the centre is relatively modern, having been rebuilt after the war - the ‘remodelling’ actually begun in 1940 when a few Germany planes got lost in the weather and dropped all their bombs on it thinking it was in France; at the time the raid was blamed on the allies and the truth only began to emerge in the mid-1950s and the full story not until the 1980s.
I’ve been there on business a couple of times in the 2010’s.
Yes, it’s a very nice part of Europe.
Southern Bavaria for me.
Bamberg in Franconia is a great little town- most unscathed by WWII, and with ten breweries for 80,000 inhabitants, including the mighty Bamberg Smoked beer, plus its really really pretty. Also the the home town of Claus Schenck Graf Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise in Valkyrie), and um... Willi Messerschmidt.
I think Badenoch will benefit a lot when the Reform implosion comes, assuming it does.
Con split to Reform, and Reform split to Restore. That's not a recipe for success. Let's look at what's happened
Phase 1: Starmer won and Con lost
Phase 2: Then Con split to Reform
Phase 3: Then Starmer shat the bed and Lab split to the Greens/Plaid/SNP
Phase 4: Then Farage shat the bed and Reform split to Restore
Phase 5: Burnham gets in, and Green returns (ish) to Lab?
In none of these scenarios does Con win. You don't get to 20% or less in the polls by accident, you have to work on repelling the electorate. Kemi has not attempted to fix the split on the right and seems content for it to persist, waiting for her food to jump into her mouth and chew itself. I realise many Con stalwarts adore her, but on the polls we have her party is dying.
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
Yes, though it is a political truism on PB that the Triple Lock and WFA must go, this polls very badly, even with the young.
A large part of the problem is that few in Britain understand where governments spend money.
or wastes vast sums, 6 billion on Ajax for instance, HS2 , giving chums handouts in covid via VIP etc
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't does not explain recent spending initiatives targeted at the young. Does grandma get leftovers from free breakfast clubs or time off babysitting because we give free childcare to couples earning up to £200,000 a year?
Its not entirely a one way street and these breakfast clubs are probably taking some of the pressure off some grandmas. But the triple lock, additional tax relief, the relief from NI contributions, free TV licences, and of course our very generous offsets for pension contributions all favour the more mature in our society. The young are getting a very raw deal at the moment.
You need to take off those rose tinted specs David. They are flinging everything but the kitchen sink at young ones nowadays. Back when we were poor everybody was on their own , the government gave you the equivalent of hee haw and people got on and worked for a living instead of constant whining about how tough it is living on £100K and paying someone to watch their offspring. Country is full of spoiled pretentious wankers whose only skill is gimme gimme gimme and whining about rich people instead of making themselves rich or living within their means
Looking at Starmers approval ratings they crashed straight after the WFA debacle .
I still find it astonishing that no one in No 10 and Starmer himself didn’t stop Reeves from putting through what will end up being the worst policy decision of recent times .
All that political pain for what was a paltry sum saved .
Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, and has no discernible political judgement. As for why Number 10 generally did not act, that begs the question whether they knew about it in advance. Rachel Reeves is also a technocrat and, as with George Osborne's omnishambles budget, it is likely the Chancellor accepted the WFA cut from a list of Treasury suggestions without a great deal of thought.
It was a perfectly sensible financial decision presented badly.
There are worse crimes.
It was and sadly once they were on the back foot, it was the same with slowing the rate of growth of benefits, and their backbenchers under pressure from well organised lobbying campaigns they were always going to fold and SKS lost his authority overnight.
WFA was a ridiculous frippery from a bygone age before pensioners did not form a large part of those with the highest disposable income after housing costs in the country. It was absolutely the right thing to do, it is astonishing that this relic survived the Osborne years. We have got to get away from the situation where so much of our limited resources are given away to those not in need by way of universal benefits. Sooner or later that is going to include at least some of the pension.
Not even that, it was exceeded by the double bubble malfunction that the triple lock does when an inflation spike is followed by a pay spike the subsequent year. Something that I'm sure nobody considered at the time, but you can't help seeing once it's there.
The political problem is that there's Noone Quite Like Grandma.
The political problem is that grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't. So, inevitably, our political class run scared of grandma.
Grandma votes consistently and her grandchildren don't does not explain recent spending initiatives targeted at the young. Does grandma get leftovers from free breakfast clubs or time off babysitting because we give free childcare to couples earning up to £200,000 a year?
Its not entirely a one way street and these breakfast clubs are probably taking some of the pressure off some grandmas. But the triple lock, additional tax relief, the relief from NI contributions, free TV licences, and of course our very generous offsets for pension contributions all favour the more mature in our society. The young are getting a very raw deal at the moment.
For standard rate taxpayers the tax benefits for pensions aren't that generous.
The big gainers are those who:
Pay higher rate while working and standard rate while retired. Able to make use of salary sacrifice. Receive a substantial employers contribution.
Lots of green cheese nowadays rather than having the gumption to go get these things, just poncy whingers with little get up and go and wanting everything on a plate.
If I had to live in Germany’s I’d give Freiburg serious consideration. There’s a pleasant, relaxed, feel about it, there’s quite a lot going on, and like my own home town it has the sunniest weather in its country. And of course there is a stack of other countries just a few hours drive away, as well as Black Forest scenery and villages nearby. The old square around the cathedral is pleasant and lively, although most of the centre is relatively modern, having been rebuilt after the war - the ‘remodelling’ actually begun in 1940 when a few Germany planes got lost in the weather and dropped all their bombs on it thinking it was in France; at the time the raid was blamed on the allies and the truth only began to emerge in the mid-1950s and the full story not until the 1980s.
I’ve been there on business a couple of times in the 2010’s.
Yes, it’s a very nice part of Europe.
Southern Bavaria for me.
Bamberg in Franconia is a great little town- most unscathed by WWII, and with ten breweries for 80,000 inhabitants, including the mighty Bamberg Smoked beer, plus its really really pretty. Also the the home town of Claus Schenck Graf Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise in Valkyrie), and um... Willi Messerschmidt.
Unfortunately Bamburg is a tourist hellhole now, coach loads of Japanese tourists all trying to get served in Schlenkerla. I remember when it was a hidden gem that only beer geeks went to for the Rauchbier
Comments
When KCIII dies Farage wants to be one of the people in the Accession Council. He wants to be in the room grinning rather than watching it on TV.
As to whether he genuinely wants to be PM for x years and try to pass legislation and deal with the budget I don't know. Given the way Trump is acting I think it is touchingly naive that some PBers believe Farage will be bound by existing rules and norms about a PM giving up external sources of income.
I just don't think Britain has the fiscal room to manoeuvre for politicians to be able to make meaningful change while not confronting the voters with economic reality.
Until a political leader grasps the vital task of speaking truth to the voters the situation in Britain will continue to deteriorate.
So where is the Kemigasm coming from?
My guess is they have a new PR on the job and their instruction is to build up Kemi. That's what PR does. Choose a selling point and then go hard on it. It's not something I would notice not being someone who receives Tory mail or appeals.
.......but I heard someone on Any Questions yesterday and they were very obviously bigging up Kemi rather tandentially to the subject. Putting forward the things she had personally been involved in that I knew nothing about. It would explain the disconnect between the polls and the reality.
At the same time, with five major parties in England, and then the Nationalists, a distinctive message is needed to gain attention, and to try to draw a dividing line between you being the answer, and everyone else being different variations of the problem.
However, she does seem to able to inculcate fanatical loyalty and enthusiasm, not least on here, despite fucking miserable polls and actual election results. That's a great political gift so maybe she does have a future.
17% in the polls and some tories on here would chop their dicks off if she asked them. That's political heft. They also rerun the Corbynite line of "nobody else would do any better" so things could go the other way...
On the specific point about Tory re-treads, I've seen a lot of vox pops with people worrying about or critical of Reform, but all the criticism focuses on Nigel. I've seen absolutely unprompted negativity about Suella and Jenrick joining. The person it seems to have upset most is Zia Yusuf.
The council by-elections still show that Reform remain strong on the insurgency front, partic the red wall, and the Tories struggling in many parts of the country. So still a very big job for Kemi to turn it round.
Our grandchildren have learned that what goes on in grandma's house stays in grandma's house and maybe why they love visiting her
And listening to Yusaf on Kuenssberg will someone make him go away
He and Farage are simply nasty and no matter whatever happens, I do not want a reform government
The Front Bench has to be the worst Tory Front Bench in Government or Opposition in history
The one Nation sensible centrist Tories are clearly content to bide their time and not play their hand too early.
No point appointmenting a new leader if Labour are about to change. If Labour do change in Autumn 2026,anyone with a political brain in the Tory Party will wait a year
Badenoch cannot win a GE, that is crystal clear, she can't finish higher than 3rd, quite probable 4th on seats on current polling as LD stack up large numbers in current and past Tory areas.
She's got the most unappealing and unempathetic of personalities and in the white heat of a GE her ability to argue with everyone would be disastrous for the Tories.
She's less a cult than a sticking plaster and the wankfest really is nothing more than desperate trolling.
It could be worse, I'll grant her that, it could be Priiti, it could have been Jenrick or Suella but it will have to be a far more unifying or empathetic person to give them any hope at all
Cleverly or Hunt
As to a Reform government no one rational wants that but that is not the extent of the problem. We have no problem at all saying what government we don't want. Getting a government we do want is proving a lot trickier.
https://youtu.be/8pZomcDOQkQ?si=4jBkZhs0n-mnT4fS
You and me both, Mr G; whatever we've felt about the governments we've seen elected over the years, none of it compares with what we feel about the prospect of a Reform government.
An initial police statement later that morning said: “It was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man.”
The Nowak family, raw with grief, became concerned that a false narrative was being pushed about their son. It is understood that police told the family the next update they planned to publish, which would include the Nowaks’ tribute, would again imply that he was the initial aggressor.
Officers dropped that section of the statement, which only referred to an “altercation” when published.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/henry-nowak-murder-trial-police-l8x990pkb
She didn't contest it, she claimed it was unit policy to watch a hypoxic baby to see if they spontaneously recovered, which confirm's the Doctors story. She didn't substantiate the claim that this was policy* with either written policy documents or confirmation by other staff.
*such a "policy" is clearly ludicrous. At the very least it merits checking the tube to see if it is misplaced, or calling for assistance.
NEW THREAD
Liam Blues
@liamblues
·
21h
Another one? What a rip off. Already got the home and the away one. What colour will it be?
https://x.com/liamblues/status/2063227482145235131?s=20
What makes Yusuf more dangerous than Farage is the fact he's never been elected by anyone to anything, but can be openly welcomed by MSM as some sort of credible spokesperson.
It's a very very dark road we are going down here.
Farage may well a notion to have a Cabinet full of Yusufs
The big gainers are those who:
Pay higher rate while working and standard rate while retired.
Able to make use of salary sacrifice.
Receive a substantial employers contribution.
As always, the problem comes with those trying to offer anything approaching constructive criticism.
The partisans don't want to hear or listen and often seek to shut down or denigrate those doing the criticising (and I've been as guilty of it in the past) but viewing it from the outside can give an alternative perspective to the hero-worship.
It seems sometimes on here any criticism of Badenoch is to be closed down - that would be unfair. I'm sure she'd be the first to admit nobody is perfect and for all @Brixian59's comments there are a few grains worth considering.
I'm no Conservative but to me she comes over occasionally as hectoring and aggressive - confident (perhaps over confident) in the validity of her position. She will have to talk to non-Conservatives to win and while she did do well this week the record of the Government of which she was a prominent and senior member is like a shadow or millstone (depending on your perspective) but either way she can no more pretend the country's problems began on July 5th 2024 than Labour in the past tried to pretend everything went wrong in 1979.
As for Farage, having attended the same school but not quite at the same time, I recognise him as a product of the 1970s which were a difficult and divisive time. Yusuf and Kruger are trying to provide some intellectual heft to Reform but that misses the point. Reform is by definition an emotional response to the perceived (and sometimes actual) problems of the day and as is often the case in populism, predicated on blaming someone else.
Britain is going to the dogs (well, some went to Towcester yesterday evening) and it's everyone else's fault and we'll do something about it. That essentially is Reform and Restore is a less nuanced version of that.
Whether you call them "the Uniparty" or not, the established parties, while apparently suffocating in the stench of their own failure, also realise most problems don't have easy solutions, the issues are nuanced and complex and often impact on other areas.
- Phase 1: Starmer won and Con lost
- Phase 2: Then Con split to Reform
- Phase 3: Then Starmer shat the bed and Lab split to the Greens/Plaid/SNP
- Phase 4: Then Farage shat the bed and Reform split to Restore
- Phase 5: Burnham gets in, and Green returns (ish) to Lab?
In none of these scenarios does Con win. You don't get to 20% or less in the polls by accident, you have to work on repelling the electorate. Kemi has not attempted to fix the split on the right and seems content for it to persist, waiting for her food to jump into her mouth and chew itself. I realise many Con stalwarts adore her, but on the polls we have her party is dying.