If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
If Phillipson is so capable, she’s doing a damn good job of hiding it.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
Burnham is many things to many people and he will be restrained by the bond markets
I expect him to be less tribal and more collegiate but we will have to see
First of all he has to win Makerfield and then see Starmer either resign or lose in a leadership ballot
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
I think you may have to look the other side of Burnham for either of them to succeed.
That Labour can't find a woman to become leader is to their continuing shame. 50-odd years behind the Tories and counting.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
This case has SFA to do with DEI.
Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?
Britain is to unleash a major new wave of corporatism, in which the state will “aggressively” take larger stakes in fast-growing private sector firms to jump-start economic growth.
Business secretary Peter Kyle will use London Tech Week, starting on Monday, to set out his vision for rebooting the economy. Billions of pounds of previously announced taxpayer aid will be used to take bigger stakes in the country’s next winners. This will result in UK taxpayers owning far more of privately owned businesses than has previously been the case.
“You are going to start to see us take more risks, upping the risk threshold in our desire to back British innovation as it scales. I want us to be aggressively ambitious,” he told The Sunday Times.
And who is this Peter Kyle who will soon be cosplaying Musk and Bezos with taxpayers money ?
By the age of 25, he was accepted on his third attempt to become a student at the University of Sussex, where he gained a degree in geography, international development, and environmental studies, and later a doctorate in community development.
After university, Kyle worked as an aid worker and as a project director for the charity Children on the Edge in Eastern Europe and the Balkans helping young people whose lives had been affected by the political instability created by the Bosnian War and Kosovan War, helping to establish an orphanage in Romania.
In 2006, Kyle became a Cabinet Office special adviser focusing on social exclusion policy.
From 2007 to 2013, he was deputy chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). In 2013, he became chief executive of Working for Youth, a newly formed charity focusing on helping unemployed youth.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
If Phillipson is so capable, she’s doing a damn good job of hiding it.
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
This case has SFA to do with DEI.
Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?
We all know that they wouldn't.
tell that to the Lawrence family
You have to go 32 years into the past for that response ?
Burnham will make exactly the mistakes Starmer has made and for exactly the same reasons.
Streeting would not but would likely make worse ones because he’s so incredibly arrogant.
I don’t think Burnham would have done winter fuel or farmers. Even though I supported both.
Burnham will discover, if successful, as all our PMs since 2008 have, that the options actually available are a lot less exciting than they would wish them to be. To create options you need to make some tough choices to free up some space within the existing envelope. That involves upsetting some people.
"the voters like the reality that they are effectively choosing the next Prime Minister"
Conversely, some may not like being used by Burnham as a mere stepping stone on his path to greater things.
I think today's Matt cartoon captures this very well.
I used to have the PM as my MP. I would’ve thought most voters would welcome it, knowing one’s local concerns are being considered right at the top of government.
Burnham will make exactly the mistakes Starmer has made and for exactly the same reasons.
Streeting would not but would likely make worse ones because he’s so incredibly arrogant.
I don’t think Burnham would have done winter fuel or farmers. Even though I supported both.
Burnham will discover, if successful, as all our PMs since 2008 have, that the options actually available are a lot less exciting than they would wish them to be. To create options you need to make some tough choices to free up some space within the existing envelope. That involves upsetting some people.
But both decisions have basically destroyed Starmer so I don’t really see how he could have just “upset some people”.
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
This case has SFA to do with DEI.
Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?
We all know that they wouldn't.
tell that to the Lawrence family
You have to go 32 years into the past for that response ?
if you don't understand the past you can't comprehend the present dear
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
I don’t see what that has to do with DEI, a US term for an organisational framework mainly affecting employees. Anyone who thinks the police is full of right on wokesters has not met a policeman. The police can be overly cynical and suspicious of everyone, including victims. They get it wrong about white people. They get it wrong about black people. They get it wrong about brown people. If you move away from individual cases and try to look at broad patterns, it’s clear they still rush to negative judgements about black men more than any other group.
What, in particular, do the Southport murders have to do with DEI? Online rabble-rousers invented a story that the attacker was a Muslim immigrant, when he was neither. That shows a problem with them, not the police.
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
This case has SFA to do with DEI.
Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?
We all know that they wouldn't.
tell that to the Lawrence family
The pattern of “we fucked up - blame the victim” repeats endlessly.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
Burnham is many things to many people and he will be restrained by the bond markets
I expect him to be less tribal and more collegiate but we will have to see
First of all he has to win Makerfield and then see Starmer either resign or lose in a leadership ballot
If he raises taxes to fund spending and nationalise the bond markets can't say it wasn't unfunded even if it hits growth.
The bond markets are only relevant if he was trying extensive unfunded borrowing as Truss was
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Reeves too. We desperately need a Chancellor with a sense of purpose.
We depserately need a Chancellor that can create growrth --> wealth.
That - and to encourage wealth into this country, not departing it.
Chop £50bn spend a year off welfare and taxes, and add another £50bn a year to investment in education, infrastructure and R&D.
There.
So you chop £25bn of welfare (spending) and £25bn of tax (income) and the government spends £50bn on investment spending.
Where is that extra £25bn of spending coming from?
The welfare cut pays for the tax cut, so it's the full extra £50bn in investment to find.
Unless Casino was recommending a £25b tax increase, which is possible, as his post is ambiguous on that (not ideal in a Chancellor). In which case the numbers add up.
The losers were the TCCB - presumably they made far less than budgeted from a barely more than 3 day test (and I presume they had to give back a chunk of the entrance fee yesterday).
Britain is to unleash a major new wave of corporatism, in which the state will “aggressively” take larger stakes in fast-growing private sector firms to jump-start economic growth.
Business secretary Peter Kyle will use London Tech Week, starting on Monday, to set out his vision for rebooting the economy. Billions of pounds of previously announced taxpayer aid will be used to take bigger stakes in the country’s next winners. This will result in UK taxpayers owning far more of privately owned businesses than has previously been the case.
“You are going to start to see us take more risks, upping the risk threshold in our desire to back British innovation as it scales. I want us to be aggressively ambitious,” he told The Sunday Times.
And who is this Peter Kyle who will soon be cosplaying Musk and Bezos with taxpayers money ?
By the age of 25, he was accepted on his third attempt to become a student at the University of Sussex, where he gained a degree in geography, international development, and environmental studies, and later a doctorate in community development.
After university, Kyle worked as an aid worker and as a project director for the charity Children on the Edge in Eastern Europe and the Balkans helping young people whose lives had been affected by the political instability created by the Bosnian War and Kosovan War, helping to establish an orphanage in Romania.
In 2006, Kyle became a Cabinet Office special adviser focusing on social exclusion policy.
From 2007 to 2013, he was deputy chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). In 2013, he became chief executive of Working for Youth, a newly formed charity focusing on helping unemployed youth.
Britain is to unleash a major new wave of corporatism, in which the state will “aggressively” take larger stakes in fast-growing private sector firms to jump-start economic growth.
Business secretary Peter Kyle will use London Tech Week, starting on Monday, to set out his vision for rebooting the economy. Billions of pounds of previously announced taxpayer aid will be used to take bigger stakes in the country’s next winners. This will result in UK taxpayers owning far more of privately owned businesses than has previously been the case.
“You are going to start to see us take more risks, upping the risk threshold in our desire to back British innovation as it scales. I want us to be aggressively ambitious,” he told The Sunday Times.
And who is this Peter Kyle who will soon be cosplaying Musk and Bezos with taxpayers money ?
By the age of 25, he was accepted on his third attempt to become a student at the University of Sussex, where he gained a degree in geography, international development, and environmental studies, and later a doctorate in community development.
After university, Kyle worked as an aid worker and as a project director for the charity Children on the Edge in Eastern Europe and the Balkans helping young people whose lives had been affected by the political instability created by the Bosnian War and Kosovan War, helping to establish an orphanage in Romania.
In 2006, Kyle became a Cabinet Office special adviser focusing on social exclusion policy.
From 2007 to 2013, he was deputy chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). In 2013, he became chief executive of Working for Youth, a newly formed charity focusing on helping unemployed youth.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Reeves too. We desperately need a Chancellor with a sense of purpose.
We depserately need a Chancellor that can create growrth --> wealth.
That - and to encourage wealth into this country, not departing it.
Chop £50bn spend a year off welfare and taxes, and add another £50bn a year to investment in education, infrastructure and R&D.
There.
So you chop £25bn of welfare (spending) and £25bn of tax (income) and the government spends £50bn on investment spending.
Where is that extra £25bn of spending coming from?
The welfare cut pays for the tax cut, so it's the full extra £50bn in investment to find.
Unless Casino was recommending a £25b tax increase, which is possible, as his post is ambiguous on that (not ideal in a Chancellor). In which case the numbers add up.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
If Phillipson is so capable, she’s doing a damn good job of hiding it.
I think she is a good communicator.
*Thinks about SEND, academies, VAT, OFSTED reforms, curriculum changes, teacher training and that batshit video with some idiot I’d never heard of.*
You think wrong.
Admittedly, that’s a fair amount of sow’s ears to deal with.
Mr Dog at Fleury, one of the villages totally destroyed during the battle of Verdun in 1916. Despite being no more, after the war the French continued its civic status, and it still has a mayor, which must be one of Europe’s more unusual political appointments.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
Britain is to unleash a major new wave of corporatism, in which the state will “aggressively” take larger stakes in fast-growing private sector firms to jump-start economic growth.
Business secretary Peter Kyle will use London Tech Week, starting on Monday, to set out his vision for rebooting the economy. Billions of pounds of previously announced taxpayer aid will be used to take bigger stakes in the country’s next winners. This will result in UK taxpayers owning far more of privately owned businesses than has previously been the case.
“You are going to start to see us take more risks, upping the risk threshold in our desire to back British innovation as it scales. I want us to be aggressively ambitious,” he told The Sunday Times.
And who is this Peter Kyle who will soon be cosplaying Musk and Bezos with taxpayers money ?
By the age of 25, he was accepted on his third attempt to become a student at the University of Sussex, where he gained a degree in geography, international development, and environmental studies, and later a doctorate in community development.
After university, Kyle worked as an aid worker and as a project director for the charity Children on the Edge in Eastern Europe and the Balkans helping young people whose lives had been affected by the political instability created by the Bosnian War and Kosovan War, helping to establish an orphanage in Romania.
In 2006, Kyle became a Cabinet Office special adviser focusing on social exclusion policy.
From 2007 to 2013, he was deputy chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). In 2013, he became chief executive of Working for Youth, a newly formed charity focusing on helping unemployed youth.
Standard fare in Europe although America prefers straight subsidies development contracts from NASA or other branches of government.
To save time, I will write the report for the enquiry
1) The government invested to heavily in picking winners rather than a spread across the solutions in a space 2) political considerations (fits the message grid) and favouritism vs viability 3) excessive paperwork without actual checking. So fraudsters stole and real companies were left with a massive burden. The response to fraud was not inspection but more paperwork. 4) often an inadequate investment was tied to irrelevant attempts to constrain the company to enact various government policies that were irrelevant to the actual technology. 5) 3&4 became a massive disincentive to non-government investment, leading to a higher rate of failure.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Reeves too. We desperately need a Chancellor with a sense of purpose.
Reeves has actually done exceptionally well on the fiscal side with golden rules.
Her problem like Starmer's is they have no political nous.
Conversely a dream team of Burnham and Streeting would lack in deep thinking of policy but are outstanding communication wise and do the day to day politics very very well.
The 10 year gilt is 4.88%. The ECB 10 year bond yields 3.38%. That 1.5% differential is killing us. It makes investment and mortgages more expensive. It comes from having a less credible fiscal strategy, higher inflation, no clear path to improve things and a willingness to keep doing things that cause more harm than good.
If you honestly believe this is "exceptionally well" you need to reset your sights and aspirations.
From another point of view it also is from not being in the Euro.
Or a much higher tax burden.
I’m only half joking. I think European countries don’t suffer from the same fiscal delusion we do. The argument for a larger state has been made and won, while we’re still deluding ourselves about low taxes - and thereby introducing all sorts of silly ones to disguise it.
(It’s mainly the risk sharing from the Euro and obstinate institutions though - much more difficult for a European wide Truss scenario to happen.)
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Yes, a good analogy. Attractive to people outside the party but at the cost of popularity with those actually within it.
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
I don’t see what that has to do with DEI, a US term for an organisational framework mainly affecting employees. Anyone who thinks the police is full of right on wokesters has not met a policeman. The police can be overly cynical and suspicious of everyone, including victims. They get it wrong about white people. They get it wrong about black people. They get it wrong about brown people. If you move away from individual cases and try to look at broad patterns, it’s clear they still rush to negative judgements about black men more than any other group.
What, in particular, do the Southport murders have to do with DEI? Online rabble-rousers invented a story that the attacker was a Muslim immigrant, when he was neither. That shows a problem with them, not the police.
The Southport murderer had the same 'red flags ignored' and 'missed opportunities' litany of various agencies which are terrified of being accused of racism.
Now perhaps some will say that the incompetence of the agencies involved had nothing to do with the murderers ethnicity.
But the two prominent cases of psychotic mass stabbings of Southport and Nottingham both meet the profile that they do.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
This case has SFA to do with DEI.
Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?
We all know that they wouldn't.
tell that to the Lawrence family
You have to go 32 years into the past for that response ?
Tell that to the families of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry.
Baroness Casey Review (2023): Baroness Casey was tasked with the investigation after serving police officer Wayne Couzens murdered Sarah Everard. She told the BBC that institutional racism, sexism and homophobia were present "across the organisation". The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has said that he accepts Baroness Casey's "diagnosis"
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
This case has SFA to do with DEI.
Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?
We all know that they wouldn't.
tell that to the Lawrence family
You have to go 32 years into the past for that response ?
Tell that to the families of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry.
Baroness Casey Review (2023): Baroness Casey was tasked with the investigation after serving police officer Wayne Couzens murdered Sarah Everard. She told the BBC that institutional racism, sexism and homophobia were present "across the organisation". The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has said that he accepts Baroness Casey's "diagnosis"
The same pattern of victim blaming, coverup and a childish, passive aggressive stance of “why are you being mean to the delicate flower that is British policing?” has been seen year after year, for decades.
The problem with performative “training” and “initiatives” is that they give cover for the same behaviour to continue.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
The 15C drop is a worst case scenario for northern and interior Scotland (although climate models generally are over-optimistic, so I wouldn't be too complacent). You have to take into account the geomorphology (much of it is in the uplands) and the location in the north Atlantic. Without a substantial land mass above it, the movement south of the gulf stream would draw down Arctic air straight into Scotland. England would be protected somewhat by Scotland and from the current's southern movement but still be dropping about 5C.
"the voters like the reality that they are effectively choosing the next Prime Minister"
Conversely, some may not like being used by Burnham as a mere stepping stone on his path to greater things.
I think today's Matt cartoon captures this very well.
No, I think the "used as a stepping stone" stuff is just parroting utter claptrap and will be viewed as such in the constituency.
75,000 electors effectively have the task of choosing the PM of a country of 65m+, and if I were in their shoes I would feel privileged.
Furthermore, it's very hard to envisage that, if they do choose Burnham, as the most powerful politician in the land he'll then ignore the interests of the local area before asking them to repeat that choice in no more than 3 years time.
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.
The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.
The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.
With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.
This case has SFA to do with DEI.
Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?
We all know that they wouldn't.
No we don't. Personally I would still rather come up against the Met as a white man than anything else. And how does "reversing the ethnicity" work when the murder victims were not all white in any case? It's like Vance wading in and blaming immigration for the Nowak case when the murderer wasn't an immigrant, and both murderer and victim came from an immigrant background.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Reeves too. We desperately need a Chancellor with a sense of purpose.
Reeves has actually done exceptionally well on the fiscal side with golden rules.
Her problem like Starmer's is they have no political nous.
Conversely a dream team of Burnham and Streeting would lack in deep thinking of policy but are outstanding communication wise and do the day to day politics very very well.
The 10 year gilt is 4.88%. The ECB 10 year bond yields 3.38%. That 1.5% differential is killing us. It makes investment and mortgages more expensive. It comes from having a less credible fiscal strategy, higher inflation, no clear path to improve things and a willingness to keep doing things that cause more harm than good.
If you honestly believe this is "exceptionally well" you need to reset your sights and aspirations.
From another point of view it also is from not being in the Euro.
Or a much higher tax burden.
I’m only half joking. I think European countries don’t suffer from the same fiscal delusion we do. The argument for a larger state has been made and won, while we’re still deluding ourselves about low taxes - and thereby introducing all sorts of silly ones to disguise it.
(It’s mainly the risk sharing from the Euro and obstinate institutions though - much more difficult for a European wide Truss scenario to happen.)
Certainly hasn't in Switzerland, which has significantly lower taxes than we do and a gdp per capita well above the European average
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
The 15C drop is a worst case scenario for northern and interior Scotland (although climate models generally are over-optimistic, so I wouldn't be too complacent). You have to take into account the geomorphology (much of it is in the uplands) and the location in the north Atlantic. Without a substantial land mass above it, the movement south of the gulf stream would draw down Arctic air straight into Scotland. England would be protected somewhat by Scotland and from the current's southern movement but still be dropping about 5C.
The geography of the North Atlantic is also quite different from the North Pacific, and it is likely that the flow of cold currents from both East and West of Greenland would alter the temperature of our waters. It is notable that the North Atlantic is the only part of the worlds surface that is cooling rather than warming. It is about 1°C cooler than the 1951-80 average while the rest of the world has warmed.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want Darren Jones, although his whatsapps to Mandy have presumably cut his nuts off. Everybody bangs on about how Streeting is a great communicator, but Jones at least turns up to communicate.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Mr Dog at Fleury, one of the villages totally destroyed during the battle of Verdun in 1916. Despite being no more, after the war the French continued its civic status, and it still has a mayor, which must be one of Europe’s more unusual political appointments.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson was not particularly left wing, certainly not economically, although his social reforms were fairly radical for the time. Equally, some of them had been mooted by Macmillan.
Bit of a buzzing in my living room these last few weeks. It seems we have a nest of white tailed bumble bees as guests, entering and leaving via the air brick.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970 as well, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government
The losers were the TCCB - presumably they made far less than budgeted from a barely more than 3 day test (and I presume they had to give back a chunk of the entrance fee yesterday).
Burnham will make exactly the mistakes Starmer has made and for exactly the same reasons.
Streeting would not but would likely make worse ones because he’s so incredibly arrogant.
I don’t think Burnham would have done winter fuel or farmers. Even though I supported both.
Burnham will discover, if successful, as all our PMs since 2008 have, that the options actually available are a lot less exciting than they would wish them to be. To create options you need to make some tough choices to free up some space within the existing envelope. That involves upsetting some people.
But both decisions have basically destroyed Starmer so I don’t really see how he could have just “upset some people”.
Starmer was destroyed by the u-turn in my view, not the original decision
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
Note that Letby has in fact waived legal privilege and allowed all of her communication with & between her lawyers to be made available to the CCRC.
She has not otherwise “chosen to remain silent” because, IIRC, prisoners are not generally permitted to talk to the press in the UK.
The question of how the expert evidence that was put before the jury came to be decided on has, I believe, been answered in Phillip Hammond’s Letby papers in Private Eye ( https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby ) - I can’t remember which one, but there’s a specific article in that collection which deals with the pre-trial hearing where the expert medical evidence was agreed between the defense & prosecution.
I do agree that, based on the evidence put before the jury, a conviction was overwhelmingly likely.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
Burnham is many things to many people and he will be restrained by the bond markets
I expect him to be less tribal and more collegiate but we will have to see
First of all he has to win Makerfield and then see Starmer either resign or lose in a leadership ballot
If he raises taxes to fund spending and nationalise the bond markets can't say it wasn't unfunded even if it hits growth.
The bond markets are only relevant if he was trying extensive unfunded borrowing as Truss was
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
The obvious inference is that the expert was good for her on some points but damaging on others and they made a tactical decision not to call him.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want Darren Jones, although his whatsapps to Mandy have presumably cut his nuts off. Everybody bangs on about how Streeting is a great communicator, but Jones at least turns up to communicate.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government
You see, actually that describes Starmer fairly well. What do you expect about Burnham that would put him somehow magically to the left of Starmer but not Wilson?
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government
You see, actually that describes Starmer fairly well. What do you expect about Burnham that would put him somehow magically to the left of Starmer but not Wilson?
If anything I would put Starmer to Wilson's left.
Starmer wouldn't know if he was to the left or right of Wilson, or indeed anyone else. To make that call he'd need to have some idea where he was actually going.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
Mr Dog at Fleury, one of the villages totally destroyed during the battle of Verdun in 1916. Despite being no more, after the war the French continued its civic status, and it still has a mayor, which must be one of Europe’s more unusual political appointments.
I do like your dog videos. Please continue
Although that one looks like Dog would rather be left alone at his daily ablutions
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
The obvious inference is that the expert was good for her on some points but damaging on others and they made a tactical decision not to call him.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want Darren Jones, although his whatsapps to Mandy have presumably cut his nuts off. Everybody bangs on about how Streeting is a great communicator, but Jones at least turns up to communicate.
Darren Jones was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time of the on/off WFA cut so how acute is his political nous?
Oh I agree that he may be absolutely awful, stupid, or both. But he always turns up. First at the microphones to explain away the latest stupidity. So he's got experience in one of the important attributes: explaining under fire.
Steve Richards pointed out that great PMs are essentially teachers: willing to explain things for as long as is needed and to gather a coterie of - for want of a better word - disciples. I think Jones's training may make him able to do that, but everybody else either I) doesn't speak or ii) only speaks in their area or iii) is Wes Streeting.
I don't think he'll win by any stretch, particularly now he's been outed as A Friend Of Mandy, but he should be in the frame
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government
You see, actually that describes Starmer fairly well. What do you expect about Burnham that would put him somehow magically to the left of Starmer but not Wilson?
If anything I would put Starmer to Wilson's left.
Starmer wouldn't know if he was to the left or right of Wilson, or indeed anyone else. To make that call he'd need to have some idea where he was actually going.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government
You see, actually that describes Starmer fairly well. What do you expect about Burnham that would put him somehow magically to the left of Starmer but not Wilson?
If anything I would put Starmer to Wilson's left.
Starmer has not renationalised water and energy which Burnham has said he would. Starmer has not restored the 50% additional rate of income tax Osborne cut, Burnham has suggested he would. Starmer has not introduced a land tax, Burnham has said he would. Burnham has not introduced a social care levy, Burnham has said he would as well as keep the mansion tax etc Reeves introduced
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
The obvious inference is that the expert was good for her on some points but damaging on others and they made a tactical decision not to call him.
Not entirely, but the insulin evidence is very strong.
Endogenous insulin is created by an enzyme that cleaves c-peptide from a precursor to create the active form so is always found with active insulin. They are metabolised at different rates so c peptide levels are usually higher. Synthetic insulin contains no c-peptide, hence the importance of the assay.
If there were very low or undetectable levels of c peptide then it is pretty diagnostic of insulin overdose. There is some criticism of how the assay was done in a non-forensic laboratory, but I recall it would have to be out by 100 fold.
Also there is no reason for a baby to suddenly produce an excess of endogenous insulin out of the blue, having had normal blood sugars previously.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
The answer to that has actually been clear for some time. There was a pre-trial meeting of experts and the defence experts either deferred to or agreed with the prosecution expert, Peter Hindmarsh, about the insulin evidence.
Recent developments regarding that insulin evidence have been quite prominently reported in the press recently.
It's always a mistake to assume that, just because you haven't done any research on a particular subject, no one else has done any either.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Fair enough, but the substantive point remains: Mahmood is authoritarian and anti-immigrant, to the point of promoting voluntary repatriation, and has stated publicly that her background as a brown Hindu insulates her from criticism from white liberals. Good or bad, such a stance would be a better fit in the Conservative Party than the Labour Party: so much so in fact I'm wondering why she joined the Labour Party in the first place, especially since the 2026 Conservative Party is remarkably non-racist compared to its 1980s incarnation.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
The 15C drop is a worst case scenario for northern and interior Scotland (although climate models generally are over-optimistic, so I wouldn't be too complacent). You have to take into account the geomorphology (much of it is in the uplands) and the location in the north Atlantic. Without a substantial land mass above it, the movement south of the gulf stream would draw down Arctic air straight into Scotland. England would be protected somewhat by Scotland and from the current's southern movement but still be dropping about 5C.
On the plus side it would be great news for Scottish skiing.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Fair enough, but the substantive point remains: Mahmood is authoritarian and anti-immigrant, to the point of promoting voluntary repatriation, and has stated publicly that her background as a brown Hindu insulates her from criticism from white liberals. Good or bad, such a stance would be a better fit in the Conservative Party than the Labour Party: so much so in fact I'm wondering why she joined the Labour Party in the first place, especially since the 2026 Conservative Party is remarkably non-racist compared to its 1980s incarnation.
She's not anti-immigrant. She's anti those who break the rules, bend the rules and generally take the piss.
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government
You see, actually that describes Starmer fairly well. What do you expect about Burnham that would put him somehow magically to the left of Starmer but not Wilson?
If anything I would put Starmer to Wilson's left.
Starmer has not renationalised water and energy which Burnham has said he would. Starmer has not restored the 50% additional rate of income tax Osborne cut, Burnham has suggested he would. Starmer has not introduced a land tax, Burnham has said he would. Burnham has not introduced a social care levy, Burnham has said he would as well as keep the mansion tax etc Reeves introduced
A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome
Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office
Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson
"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966
THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government
You see, actually that describes Starmer fairly well. What do you expect about Burnham that would put him somehow magically to the left of Starmer but not Wilson?
If anything I would put Starmer to Wilson's left.
Starmer wouldn't know if he was to the left or right of Wilson, or indeed anyone else. To make that call he'd need to have some idea where he was actually going.
Burnham's track record is that he's also a weathercock, currently signposts would be Miliband and Khan in Labour. Streeting I'd suggest is more likely to be a weathercock, not sure about Rayner.
Leclerc has blown it twice for himself this afternoon. If he wanted to stay out, he should have stayed out - entirely his call.
Now binned it.
And blaming the brakes.
"Leclerc has blown it twice for himself this afternoon."
He must have a very flexible spine.
Both he and the team are probably asking themselves if the long term contract they just signed was a good idea..
.."I don't even know why I listen. I know we need to become better. Why are you not letting me out. I don't even understand you're explanation to be honest"..
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Fair enough, but the substantive point remains: Mahmood is authoritarian and anti-immigrant, to the point of promoting voluntary repatriation, and has stated publicly that her background as a brown Hindu insulates her from criticism from white liberals. Good or bad, such a stance would be a better fit in the Conservative Party than the Labour Party: so much so in fact I'm wondering why she joined the Labour Party in the first place, especially since the 2026 Conservative Party is remarkably non-racist compared to its 1980s incarnation.
She's not anti-immigrant. She's anti those who break the rules, bend the rules and generally take the piss.
Just completed my civic duty and voted. Used four of my nine votes for Senators and one for a deputy but it was least bad option and my vote for one of two Connétables (nearest equivalent is a Mayor in a French or Swiss commune really but they also have special policing powers, in charge of the honorary police and have sentencing powers for certain offences).
Queued for ten minutes but had hit a sweet spot as one of the officials I spoke to said that people had be queuing for over an hour at points this morning and they have never seen anything like the turnout this time before.
Anyway I feel truly virtuous now and hope get back to my normal self over the course of the day.
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
I mentioned this last night but not limited to this, Roy Meadow still haunts my father, plus my father has a very low opinion of some lawyers.
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.
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
The obvious inference is that the expert was good for her on some points but damaging on others and they made a tactical decision not to call him.
Not entirely, but the insulin evidence is very strong.
Endogenous insulin is created by an enzyme that cleaves c-peptide from a precursor to create the active form so is always found with active insulin. They are metabolised at different rates so c peptide levels are usually higher. Synthetic insulin contains no c-peptide, hence the importance of the assay.
If there were very low or undetectable levels of c peptide then it is pretty diagnostic of insulin overdose. There is some criticism of how the assay was done in a non-forensic laboratory, but I recall it would have to be out by 100 fold.
Also there is no reason for a baby to suddenly produce an excess of endogenous insulin out of the blue, having had normal blood sugars previously.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Dr Shoo Lee's explanation regarding Baby 6's c-peptide levels. This baby's blood sugar issues are discussed between 43.00 and 55.30 in the press conference video linked below, and Dr Lee focusses upon the c-peptide levels at 51.43...
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
This particular online personality isn't a good source for anything except bullshit.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
This particular online personality isn't a good source for anything except bullshit.
Leclerc has blown it twice for himself this afternoon. If he wanted to stay out, he should have stayed out - entirely his call.
Now binned it.
And blaming the brakes.
"Leclerc has blown it twice for himself this afternoon."
He must have a very flexible spine.
Both he and the team are probably asking themselves if the long term contract they just signed was a good idea..
.."I don't even know why I listen. I know we need to become better. Why are you not letting me out. I don't even understand you're explanation to be honest"..
Have Monaco subcontracted the tarmacking job to a UK outfit?
Comments
Streeting would not but would likely make worse ones because he’s so incredibly arrogant.
I expect him to be less tribal and more collegiate but we will have to see
First of all he has to win Makerfield and then see Starmer either resign or lose in a leadership ballot
That Labour can't find a woman to become leader is to their continuing shame. 50-odd years behind the Tories and counting.
Britain is to unleash a major new wave of corporatism, in which the state will “aggressively” take larger stakes in fast-growing private sector firms to jump-start economic growth.
Business secretary Peter Kyle will use London Tech Week, starting on Monday, to set out his vision for rebooting the economy. Billions of pounds of previously announced taxpayer aid will be used to take bigger stakes in the country’s next winners. This will result in UK taxpayers owning far more of privately owned businesses than has previously been the case.
“You are going to start to see us take more risks, upping the risk threshold in our desire to back British innovation as it scales. I want us to be aggressively ambitious,” he told The Sunday Times.
https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/peter-kyle-state-aggressive-stakes-uk-firms-0xj7krng7
And who is this Peter Kyle who will soon be cosplaying Musk and Bezos with taxpayers money ?
By the age of 25, he was accepted on his third attempt to become a student at the University of Sussex, where he gained a degree in geography, international development, and environmental studies, and later a doctorate in community development.
After university, Kyle worked as an aid worker and as a project director for the charity Children on the Edge in Eastern Europe and the Balkans helping young people whose lives had been affected by the political instability created by the Bosnian War and Kosovan War, helping to establish an orphanage in Romania.
In 2006, Kyle became a Cabinet Office special adviser focusing on social exclusion policy.
From 2007 to 2013, he was deputy chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). In 2013, he became chief executive of Working for Youth, a newly formed charity focusing on helping unemployed youth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kyle
Or even Starmer.
What, in particular, do the Southport murders have to do with DEI? Online rabble-rousers invented a story that the attacker was a Muslim immigrant, when he was neither. That shows a problem with them, not the police.
The only change is in the ingroups and outgroups.
The bond markets are only relevant if he was trying extensive unfunded borrowing as Truss was
Unless Casino was recommending a £25b tax increase, which is possible, as his post is ambiguous on that (not ideal in a Chancellor).
In which case the numbers add up.
The losers were the TCCB - presumably they made far less than budgeted from a barely more than 3 day test (and I presume they had to give back a chunk of the entrance fee yesterday).
subsidiesdevelopment contracts from NASA or other branches of government.A real Kate Bingham.
You think wrong.
Admittedly, that’s a fair amount of sow’s ears to deal with.
Presume that means 1.5°C ?
Look at the latitude we are on.
1) The government invested to heavily in picking winners rather than a spread across the solutions in a space
2) political considerations (fits the message grid) and favouritism vs viability
3) excessive paperwork without actual checking. So fraudsters stole and real companies were left with a massive burden. The response to fraud was not inspection but more paperwork.
4) often an inadequate investment was tied to irrelevant attempts to constrain the company to enact various government policies that were irrelevant to the actual technology.
5) 3&4 became a massive disincentive to non-government investment, leading to a higher rate of failure.
I’m only half joking. I think European countries don’t suffer from the same fiscal delusion we do. The argument for a larger state has been made and won, while we’re still deluding ourselves about low taxes - and thereby introducing all sorts of silly ones to disguise it.
(It’s mainly the risk sharing from the Euro and obstinate institutions though - much more difficult for a European wide Truss scenario to happen.)
Now perhaps some will say that the incompetence of the agencies involved had nothing to do with the murderers ethnicity.
But the two prominent cases of psychotic mass stabbings of Southport and Nottingham both meet the profile that they do.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
Baroness Casey Review (2023): Baroness Casey was tasked with the investigation after serving police officer Wayne Couzens murdered Sarah Everard. She told the BBC that institutional racism, sexism and homophobia were present "across the organisation". The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has said that he accepts Baroness Casey's "diagnosis"
Keiko Fujimori has been showing narrow leads in most polls.
As usual, in Peruvian politics, the choice is between Bad and Oh My God
The problem with performative “training” and “initiatives” is that they give cover for the same behaviour to continue.
Which it has.
75,000 electors effectively have the task of choosing the PM of a country of 65m+, and if I were in their shoes I would feel privileged.
Furthermore, it's very hard to envisage that, if they do choose Burnham, as the most powerful politician in the land he'll then ignore the interests of the local area before asking them to repeat that choice in no more than 3 years time.
I am distraught.
And how does "reversing the ethnicity" work when the murder victims were not all white in any case? It's like Vance wading in and blaming immigration for the Nowak case when the murderer wasn't an immigrant, and both murderer and victim came from an immigrant background.
Peter.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529078-mysterious-cold-blob-in-the-atlantic-suggests-the-amoc-is-weakening/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4M_ziTbo8Qw
That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.
Although if you hadn't told me I'd swear you were laughing too.
Bit of a buzzing in my living room these last few weeks. It seems we have a nest of white tailed bumble bees as guests, entering and leaving via the air brick.
I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.
"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."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
She has not otherwise “chosen to remain silent” because, IIRC, prisoners are not generally permitted to talk to the press in the UK.
The question of how the expert evidence that was put before the jury came to be decided on has, I believe, been answered in Phillip Hammond’s Letby papers in Private Eye ( https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby ) - I can’t remember which one, but there’s a specific article in that collection which deals with the pre-trial hearing where the expert medical evidence was agreed between the defense & prosecution.
I do agree that, based on the evidence put before the jury, a conviction was overwhelmingly likely.
Which would be… interesting
If anything I would put Starmer to Wilson's left.
It all turns on the insulin evidence.
( & this article talks about the waiver of privilege for the CCRC: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-34.pdf )
Steve Richards pointed out that great PMs are essentially teachers: willing to explain things for as long as is needed and to gather a coterie of - for want of a better word - disciples. I think Jones's training may make him able to do that, but everybody else either I) doesn't speak or ii) only speaks in their area or iii) is Wes Streeting.
I don't think he'll win by any stretch, particularly now he's been outed as A Friend Of Mandy, but he should be in the frame
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9837439-i-have-divided-politicians-into-two-categories-the-signposts-and
Endogenous insulin is created by an enzyme that cleaves c-peptide from a precursor to create the active form so is always found with active insulin. They are metabolised at different rates so c peptide levels are usually higher. Synthetic insulin contains no c-peptide, hence the importance of the assay.
If there were very low or undetectable levels of c peptide then it is pretty diagnostic of insulin overdose. There is some criticism of how the assay was done in a non-forensic laboratory, but I recall it would have to be out by 100 fold.
Also there is no reason for a baby to suddenly produce an excess of endogenous insulin out of the blue, having had normal blood sugars previously.
Recent developments regarding that insulin evidence have been quite prominently reported in the press recently.
It's always a mistake to assume that, just because you haven't done any research on a particular subject, no one else has done any either.
Not been a race for decades
If he wanted to stay out, he should have stayed out - entirely his call.
Now binned it.
And blaming the brakes.
He must have a very flexible spine.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/06/national-grid-to-be-partially-nationalised-to-help-reach-net-zero-targets
.."I don't even know why I listen. I know we need to become better. Why are you not letting me out. I don't even understand you're explanation to be honest"..
Queued for ten minutes but had hit a sweet spot as one of the officials I spoke to said that people had be queuing for over an hour at points this morning and they have never seen anything like the turnout this time before.
Anyway I feel truly virtuous now and hope get back to my normal self over the course of the day.
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.
https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT8CO15IHMs
Ben Judah, not Dixie.