“ Britain is facing a surge in people taking their employers to court following Angela Rayner’s sweeping workers’ rights reforms.
Employment claims increased by 55pc in the first quarter of 2026 compared with the same period last year, new official figures show.
It comes after Labour’s Employment Rights Act obtained Royal Assent in December. It represents the biggest expansion of workers’ rights in over a decade, giving employees new protections over statutory sick pay, unfair dismissal and zero-hours contracts.”
“ Shop worker roles were the worst-affected, as high street firms were squeezed by higher minimum wage costs, taxes and energy bills.
Employers that still needed to take people on had instead reached for “more flexible solutions”, leading to the biggest surge in temporary worker billings for three years.”
Not a problem likely to affect anyone here so no one will be bothered
Nonsense. The number of cases dropped when people had to pay to come to court. When it became free to issue a claim, it jumped. My OH is dealing with a serial claimant using their 'disability' to mount a claim for free. It's the zero cost to the individual that is the issue, not the change in the law.
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
Easy to say when you don’t live in the six counties but a rather middle class part of Wales
Starmer's defiant I am going nowhere comments on the BBC sounded like the last throw of the dice
I expect this time next week Burnham will have won, and next weekend will see Starmer's cabinet tell him time is up
This farcical situation has to come to an end swiftly, as the paralysis and absurd comments in the media by Starmer's loyalists are simply embarrassing and making us a laughing stock
I assume had there been no by election next week, Starmer would already be on his way to Charlie
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
No but it's more clearly expressed. He's saying iho a better result was realistically achievable if Blair and Co had hung tougher on concessions. I disagree. I think the GFA was a huge positive achievement. I think most people do, both inside and outside NI.
Mo Mowlam bent over backwards to appease the extremists and marginalise the moderates. She was a bit dense but Blair had to find something to do with her. That is why we are where we are.
Blair bypassed her when it came to getting it over the line.
The hand of history wasn't on Mo's shoulder.
Well it was - then it frogmarched her out of the building.
Ah yes, I remember, when Blair got jealous of her because she got a standing ovation.
The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer. Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content.
In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course.
As absurd as this sounds I’d trust the comments from the Iranian regime than the Trumpdozer.
The Iranian view is less complimentary than the Twitter feed. Two sides shouting past each other.
Clearly Aragachi, Pezehkian and that speaker dude are in office but not in power.
This is the point that Trump made, then has clearly forgotten. Israel took out the leadership and the new leadership is unformed at present. So how does Trump think he can do a deal with a fluid leadership structure? The more he pursues the 'deal' the more he shows the US to be a declining power. And those viewing will fill the gap.
This conflict has shown the US and Israel as declining powers.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
I think you're mixing up two issues.
As part of the GFA, we decided to not to go after the MoV for their former activities, prior to the GFA, in return for them ceasing to be MoV. That was unpalatable, but probably necessary.
What we've also done, in practice, is give the MoV a degree of immunity from investigation for crimes committed post GFA. This is very much not OK, because ultimately it's allowing the MoV to continue to exert control via thier violence. Thus we arrive at the point where we sentence English people who may have posted unkind things about on Twitter about immigrants more harshly than the MoV who have been pulling the strings behind the latest round of burning people out of their houses in Belfast.
(I'm actually in NI this week, I encountered a load of stuff dumped and set on fire at a junction on the A55 in East Belfast on my way through on Tuesday night, which was a bit surreal when you're not used to that sort of thing - presumably in some way connected to the protests).
Thanks for the summary. While the police may be taking a different approach in Belfast, @Malmesbury is exaggerating. Multiple people have been arrested and charged in Belfast.
It is quite literally “The thick of it”. This stuff is just too cringe. Stop it please. Stop it.
Oh no, it's Karl "personality" Turner.
He's right though isn't he? We are, as Hodges keeps saying, at the "where is Steiner" period of this downfall.
I guess. He's going and thus has no authority. But Turner is being a dick imo. He's meant to be a Labour MP not an internet joker looking for lols and likes at the expense of his own PM and party.
Well, that's up to the Whips to deal with.
As an aside, the idea that Burnham will drop the whipping system, which he has claimed, is total bollocks imho. Not going to happen.
It will be generally fascinating what he does or doesn't do. People are atm seeing what they want to see in him (good or bad). I'm hoping he disappoints the "lol bound to be shit" brigade. I'm as weary of facile cynicism in commentary as in politics.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
The WH has a starkly different description of the preliminary Iran deal than the Iranians.
This is what a senior administration official tells @rachelvscott the deal includes:
1. Nuclear material will be destroyed and removed 2. Nuclear program will be dismantled 3. None of their money released until they perform 4. Strait of Hormuz will be open 5. No Iran funding of terrorist groups
“This is what they agreed to. This is a performance- based deal real.”
"...There are some brutal briefings about Keir Starmer in the wake of John Healey’s resignation today. This one - from a Treasury official - stands out in our splash
* “As always with the prime minister, he is unable to make sound political and timely decisions * “Funding the defence investment plan requires cuts to elements of government spending vital to growth - a key issue obviously this country needs to work on" * “This was flagged to No 10 in May and as usual he is a rabbit in the headlights and does not make a decision" * “Prioritise growth funding or defence spending - take a decision”
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
I think you're mixing up two issues.
As part of the GFA, we decided to not to go after the MoV for their former activities, prior to the GFA, in return for them ceasing to be MoV. That was unpalatable, but probably necessary.
What we've also done, in practice, is give the MoV a degree of immunity from investigation for crimes committed post GFA. This is very much not OK, because ultimately it's allowing the MoV to continue to exert control via thier violence. Thus we arrive at the point where we sentence English people who may have posted unkind things about on Twitter about immigrants more harshly than the MoV who have been pulling the strings behind the latest round of burning people out of their houses in Belfast.
(I'm actually in NI this week, I encountered a load of stuff dumped and set on fire at a junction on the A55 in East Belfast on my way through on Tuesday night, which was a bit surreal when you're not used to that sort of thing - presumably in some way connected to the protests).
Thanks for the summary. While the police may be taking a different approach in Belfast, @Malmesbury is exaggerating. Multiple people have been arrested and charged in Belfast.
Multiple junior spides. The men in masks handing out lists of houses to target - nope. The men behind them? They had lunch at Stormont.
Apparently there is a chance that Iran could play the US in the first knock-out round of the World Cup. Who would have imagined that there might be a point where virtually all of the world would be supporting Irran if that happened.
I have my Paraguay shirt ready for later. Cool design actually.
When was the 1st time something happened that made you think this might not be the country you'd been raised to think & hope it was? Not just something you disagreed with, but that was of a nature, or created a reaction in others, that made you doubt?
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
I will say that throughout my working life 1960 - 2009 I became quite annoyed that I had to work to 65 and women 60
The equalisation of the age was justified and everyone had sufficient notice
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
20 years to make up a few years of lost pension could easily have covered most of it and no reason male taxpayers of the same age should still have to pay for women to collect their state pension earlier than they did just as they were in the cohort when the retirement age was equalised
When was the 1st time something happened that made you think this might not be the country you'd been raised to think & hope it was? Not just something you disagreed with, but that was of a nature, or created a reaction in others, that made you doubt?
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
A woman who was 45 when this change came in in 1995 then she’d get her pension at age 60-61 depending on her birthday.
I see the Telegraph is running another anti- Net Zero article which basically consists of here are things the EU have already implemented that we will also be doing so
That's the funniest thing I have seen today. Milliband introduces some rules to make sure that inefficient and expensive to run products ae no longer on the market, and the Telegraph has a fugue. Here's the full article link for anyone who wants a read:
Imaginator Clare Coutinho and Richard Stupid Tice are on top form:
Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said the rule changes were tantamount to “Soviet-level intrusion”, saying “our lives are being dictated by net zero legislation”.
She added: “Ed Miliband wants to tell you how long your towel rail can be switched on. He’s already decided how you are allowed to dry your pyjamas and now he wants to make it harder to have underfloor heating in your home.”
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, accused the Energy Secretary of making households “cold and miserable” to meet climate goals.
He said: “Mad Miliband’s latest net zero push to restrict underfloor heating and electric towel rails is utter madness. Even the Romans had underfloor heating.
“This Orwellian move could mean families in the 21st century having to limit the time they spend keeping their homes warm or drying their clothes.
“Labour is choosing to focus on tone-deaf green ideology rather than bringing down household costs.”
Apparently there is a chance that Iran could play the US in the first knock-out round of the World Cup. Who would have imagined that there might be a point where virtually all of the world would be supporting Irran if that happened.
Still feel there's half a chance Iran won't even get in to play their first group game, which would be massive awks.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
A woman who was 45 when this change came in in 1995 then she’d get her pension at age 60-61 depending on her birthday.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
When was the 1st time something happened that made you think this might not be the country you'd been raised to think & hope it was? Not just something you disagreed with, but that was of a nature, or created a reaction in others, that made you doubt?
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
20 years to make up a few years of lost pension could easily have covered most of it and no reason male taxpayers of the same age should still have to pay for women to collect their state pension earlier than they did just as they were in the cohort when the retirement age was equalised
I don’t understand how they were disadvantaged - surely they just had to work for longer. While disappointing, it won't have left them out of pocket and more likely better off financially if not temporally.
Case in point: the Prime Minister just said defence is "a number one priority".
Growth was meant to the number one priority, is it still?
There's not enough money for defence, but today the Government announced £4.5 BILLION for walking and cycling.
Make choices. Decide. Lead.
In 2020, the policy background to the COVID response was based on putting health before wealth - the public health of the country was deemed to be more important than the economy which effectively stopped for a quarter. The consequences of that decision (basically paying people to sit at home to avoid the virus) stay with us to this day.
In 2026, we are being confronted with if not a similar choice then an equally significant one. To what extent are we prepared to compromise the kind of welfare state we now have in order to defend said state from a threat which may or may not materialise? To what extent equally should any Government be prepared to raise taxes to pay for the defence of the country?
I also see it's being framed as welfare spending vs defence spending while it could equally be framed as additional tax revenue vs defence spending.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
It's a hustle.
They should quite rightly be told to leave in a copulating manner, in the original Anglo-Saxon.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
I am genuinely interested in the counter factual where winter fuel didn’t happen. Nearly 2 years on it still comes up more often than not in focus groups (and contrary to what some assume just as often from non pensioners) as the moment people lost faith in Starmer and his Govt
From talking to so many people since the election the consequences of that decision and way it was announced and the amount of good will it eroded I think are outsized - and much more convincing as a narrative of the unravelling of this Government than Britain is ungovernable.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
Make up for what? The retirement age was going up.
On topic: I am opposed to US women losing rights to make them equal to US men. For example, I am opposed to changing our selective service act to require women, as well as men, to register for a potential draft at 18. And so on.
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
I think you're mixing up two issues.
As part of the GFA, we decided to not to go after the MoV for their former activities, prior to the GFA, in return for them ceasing to be MoV. That was unpalatable, but probably necessary.
What we've also done, in practice, is give the MoV a degree of immunity from investigation for crimes committed post GFA. This is very much not OK, because ultimately it's allowing the MoV to continue to exert control via thier violence. Thus we arrive at the point where we sentence English people who may have posted unkind things about on Twitter about immigrants more harshly than the MoV who have been pulling the strings behind the latest round of burning people out of their houses in Belfast.
(I'm actually in NI this week, I encountered a load of stuff dumped and set on fire at a junction on the A55 in East Belfast on my way through on Tuesday night, which was a bit surreal when you're not used to that sort of thing - presumably in some way connected to the protests).
Thanks for the summary. While the police may be taking a different approach in Belfast, @Malmesbury is exaggerating. Multiple people have been arrested and charged in Belfast.
Multiple junior spides. The men in masks handing out lists of houses to target - nope. The men behind them? They had lunch at Stormont.
Same as the mainland. Some banged up in Southampton, others in the House of Commons.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
Make up for what? The retirement age was going up.
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
I think you're mixing up two issues.
As part of the GFA, we decided to not to go after the MoV for their former activities, prior to the GFA, in return for them ceasing to be MoV. That was unpalatable, but probably necessary.
What we've also done, in practice, is give the MoV a degree of immunity from investigation for crimes committed post GFA. This is very much not OK, because ultimately it's allowing the MoV to continue to exert control via thier violence. Thus we arrive at the point where we sentence English people who may have posted unkind things about on Twitter about immigrants more harshly than the MoV who have been pulling the strings behind the latest round of burning people out of their houses in Belfast.
(I'm actually in NI this week, I encountered a load of stuff dumped and set on fire at a junction on the A55 in East Belfast on my way through on Tuesday night, which was a bit surreal when you're not used to that sort of thing - presumably in some way connected to the protests).
Thanks for the summary. While the police may be taking a different approach in Belfast, @Malmesbury is exaggerating. Multiple people have been arrested and charged in Belfast.
Multiple junior spides. The men in masks handing out lists of houses to target - nope. The men behind them? They had lunch at Stormont.
Same as the mainland. Some banged up in Southampton, others in the House of Commons.
I am genuinely interested in the counter factual where winter fuel didn’t happen. Nearly 2 years on it still comes up more often than not in focus groups (and contrary to what some assume just as often from non pensioners) as the moment people lost faith in Starmer and his Govt
From talking to so many people since the election the consequences of that decision and way it was announced and the amount of good will it eroded I think are outsized - and much more convincing as a narrative of the unravelling of this Government than Britain is ungovernable.
A really strong leader with good political skills could have sold WFA cuts.
Goodness me, all sorts of benefits were cut by the coalition during 2010-2012 and they came back.
Tell that to Nick Clegg.
ETA: Besides, the coalition cut benefits for the young, the unwashed and middle-class families with children. Benefits for core Conservative voters (i.e. the old) were steadily inflated by the Triple Lock.
I am genuinely interested in the counter factual where winter fuel didn’t happen. Nearly 2 years on it still comes up more often than not in focus groups (and contrary to what some assume just as often from non pensioners) as the moment people lost faith in Starmer and his Govt
From talking to so many people since the election the consequences of that decision and way it was announced and the amount of good will it eroded I think are outsized - and much more convincing as a narrative of the unravelling of this Government than Britain is ungovernable.
A really strong leader with good political skills could have sold WFA cuts.
Goodness me, all sorts of benefits were cut by the coalition during 2010-2012 and they came back.
The removal of WFA was presumably seen within Government as looking decisive about cutting back the State and with the OBR holding up the budget for weeks, it looked like the incoming Government was hitting the ground running.
Had they for simple announced they were withdrawing WFA from higher rate taxpayers, there'd have been a lot of grumbling but most would probably have accepted it and it certainly wouldn't have resonated.
This was further complicated by the "freebies" issue which was of course over egged completely by the opposition media but nonetheless made the new Government look a) no better than its predecessor and b) the juxtaposition of Labour MPs accepting freebies while removing WFA from poor pensioners was about as bad as it gets in presentational terms.
I am genuinely interested in the counter factual where winter fuel didn’t happen. Nearly 2 years on it still comes up more often than not in focus groups (and contrary to what some assume just as often from non pensioners) as the moment people lost faith in Starmer and his Govt
From talking to so many people since the election the consequences of that decision and way it was announced and the amount of good will it eroded I think are outsized - and much more convincing as a narrative of the unravelling of this Government than Britain is ungovernable.
You can't have a sensible policy with budget choices where you don't cut WFA as originally proposed. On topic the special pleading is every bit as egregious as WASPI women.
"...There are some brutal briefings about Keir Starmer in the wake of John Healey’s resignation today. This one - from a Treasury official - stands out in our splash
* “As always with the prime minister, he is unable to make sound political and timely decisions * “Funding the defence investment plan requires cuts to elements of government spending vital to growth - a key issue obviously this country needs to work on" * “This was flagged to No 10 in May and as usual he is a rabbit in the headlights and does not make a decision" * “Prioritise growth funding or defence spending - take a decision”
That is a very long way from the only choice.
It is true that Starmer struggles to make decisions, but that's a pitifully dishonest briefing. Is it Reeves ?
It's a mark of Starmer's weak position that he can't either face her down or sack her.
Case in point: the Prime Minister just said defence is "a number one priority".
Growth was meant to the number one priority, is it still?
There's not enough money for defence, but today the Government announced £4.5 BILLION for walking and cycling.
Make choices. Decide. Lead.
In 2020, the policy background to the COVID response was based on putting health before wealth - the public health of the country was deemed to be more important than the economy which effectively stopped for a quarter. The consequences of that decision (basically paying people to sit at home to avoid the virus) stay with us to this day.
In 2026, we are being confronted with if not a similar choice then an equally significant one. To what extent are we prepared to compromise the kind of welfare state we now have in order to defend said state from a threat which may or may not materialise? To what extent equally should any Government be prepared to raise taxes to pay for the defence of the country?
I also see it's being framed as welfare spending vs defence spending while it could equally be framed as additional tax revenue vs defence spending.
Quite. Why does bullshit right-wing framing always get so much oxygen?
Welfare v Defence? Fuck off with that. Tax/Spend is fungible.
I think I would too and I would rather see a 1-2p rise in basic rate income tax to fund defence as long as we get complete and verifiable assurances that's where the money would go.
There is, I think, a serious issue about whether the £66 billion currently allocated to defence is being spent wisely and effectively and I think before committing to further funding, we need to be very clear about how the money is spent, on what and there is trnasparency about for example procurement (where possible).
We can and do critique money spent on the NHS as being a bottomless pit but why shouldn't we apply the same rigour and indeed scepticism to defence expenditure?
Case in point: the Prime Minister just said defence is "a number one priority".
Growth was meant to the number one priority, is it still?
There's not enough money for defence, but today the Government announced £4.5 BILLION for walking and cycling.
Make choices. Decide. Lead.
In 2020, the policy background to the COVID response was based on putting health before wealth - the public health of the country was deemed to be more important than the economy which effectively stopped for a quarter. The consequences of that decision (basically paying people to sit at home to avoid the virus) stay with us to this day.
In 2026, we are being confronted with if not a similar choice then an equally significant one. To what extent are we prepared to compromise the kind of welfare state we now have in order to defend said state from a threat which may or may not materialise? To what extent equally should any Government be prepared to raise taxes to pay for the defence of the country?
I also see it's being framed as welfare spending vs defence spending while it could equally be framed as additional tax revenue vs defence spending.
Quite. Why does bullshit right-wing framing always get so much oxygen?
Welfare v Defence? Fuck off with that. Tax/Spend is fungible.
To be fair, it's a bullshit left-wing framing as well- if only we weren't tricked into buying all these horrid bombs, we could save all the ickle children. Both arguments get far too much airtime, because that's how populism works.
And the real argument- between that nonsense and the reality that we need both and need to work out how to pay for them (spoiler: UK tax on comfortable normies has been unsustainably low for a couple of generations now)- is far to unpleasant to contemplate.
When was the 1st time something happened that made you think this might not be the country you'd been raised to think & hope it was? Not just something you disagreed with, but that was of a nature, or created a reaction in others, that made you doubt?
When was the 1st time something happened that made you think this might not be the country you'd been raised to think & hope it was? Not just something you disagreed with, but that was of a nature, or created a reaction in others, that made you doubt?
Case in point: the Prime Minister just said defence is "a number one priority".
Growth was meant to the number one priority, is it still?
There's not enough money for defence, but today the Government announced £4.5 BILLION for walking and cycling.
Make choices. Decide. Lead.
In 2020, the policy background to the COVID response was based on putting health before wealth - the public health of the country was deemed to be more important than the economy which effectively stopped for a quarter. The consequences of that decision (basically paying people to sit at home to avoid the virus) stay with us to this day.
In 2026, we are being confronted with if not a similar choice then an equally significant one. To what extent are we prepared to compromise the kind of welfare state we now have in order to defend said state from a threat which may or may not materialise? To what extent equally should any Government be prepared to raise taxes to pay for the defence of the country?
I also see it's being framed as welfare spending vs defence spending while it could equally be framed as additional tax revenue vs defence spending.
Quite. Why does bullshit right-wing framing always get so much oxygen?
Welfare v Defence? Fuck off with that. Tax/Spend is fungible.
To be fair, it's a bullshit left-wing framing as well- if only we weren't tricked into buying all these horrid bombs, we could save all the ickle children. Both arguments get far too much airtime, because that's how populism works.
And the real argument- between that nonsense and the reality that we need both and need to work out how to pay for them (spoiler: UK tax on comfortable normies has been unsustainably low for a couple of generations now)- is far to unpleasant to contemplate.
That is all true. But I do think the right wing variety hogs the limelight. Perhaps because the Conservatives chip in with it too. 'Welfare v Defence' is halfway round the country before 'it's just the usual from the neoliberal war machine' has got its doc martens on.
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
Easy to say when you don’t live in the six counties but a rather middle class part of Wales
For around ten years I was in Northern Ireland one week in six. For purely selfish reasons I was quite relieved that the place was relatively peaceful. I am sure it was fine but taking an X1 hire car along Ballygomartin Road on Southern Irish plates was a bit nerve racking. I stayed at a nice little hotel in Shipquay Street, Derry a week before a pizza van was blown up on Shipquay Street.
Even if truth and reconciliation is a pretty shite tradeoff I think the GFA is worth it.
I think I would too and I would rather see a 1-2p rise in basic rate income tax to fund defence as long as we get complete and verifiable assurances that's where the money would go.
There is, I think, a serious issue about whether the £66 billion currently allocated to defence is being spent wisely and effectively and I think before committing to further funding, we need to be very clear about how the money is spent, on what and there is trnasparency about for example procurement (where possible).
We can and do critique money spent on the NHS as being a bottomless pit but why shouldn't we apply the same rigour and indeed scepticism to defence expenditure?
The endless fannying around, with infinite reviews, and value audits, and reports is one reason why it takes so long to get anything done, and when it is done it costs twice as much as it should.
I often think we need to just get on with it, accept that sometimes mistakes might be made, but deal with that in a grown-up way when it happens. Trying to do everything perfectly, with zero mistakes or waste, often seems to guarantee masses of waste and delay.
Of course women born in the 1950s had first notification the state pension age was to be equalised for men and women back in the 1990s. So had plenty of time to plan, no need for taxpayers to pay to compensate them
Not really!
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
Make up for what? The retirement age was going up.
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
Easy to say when you don’t live in the six counties but a rather middle class part of Wales
For around ten years I was in Northern Ireland one week in six. For purely selfish reasons I was quite relieved that the place was relatively peaceful. I am sure it was fine but taking an X1 hire car along Ballygomartin Road on Southern Irish plates was a bit nerve racking. I stayed at a nice little hotel in Shipquay Street, Derry a week before a pizza van was blown up on Shipquay Street.
Even if truth and reconciliation is a pretty shite tradeoff I think the GFA is worth it.
Think of it like Dubai. Passing through vs living there.
Has there ever been an issue that so passionately and completely unites PB.com as the lack of merit in the claim of the Waspi women?
I think it even surpasses, in its ability to generate boo-hisses, the SMO of Vladimir Putin.
It annoys me mainly because of equality. It was ludicrous that women got the state pension earlie4 than men, so equalising it had to be done. And then the nove was introduced with plenty of time to get used to the idea. To claim that they weren’t warned is ridiculous. Watch the news, read a paper, talk to a financial planner, or citizens advice. But I cannot accept sticking heads in the sand and then claiming it’s all so unfair.
We'd be sorted if everybody felt that but it appears they don't. It's more a case of 'fund defence properly, people on benefits will pay the price'.
Certainly not while Labour are in, they even ended the two child benefit cap and refused to reform welfare to get more of those on sickness benefits into work. Burnham will just raise tax even higher on higher earners and landowners
When was the 1st time something happened that made you think this might not be the country you'd been raised to think & hope it was? Not just something you disagreed with, but that was of a nature, or created a reaction in others, that made you doubt?
We'd be sorted if everybody felt that but it appears they don't. It's more a case of 'fund defence properly, people on benefits will pay the price'.
Certainly not while Labour are in, they even ended the two child benefit cap and refused to reform welfare to get more of those on sickness benefits into work. Burnham will just raise tax even higher on higher earners and landowners
When was the 1st time something happened that made you think this might not be the country you'd been raised to think & hope it was? Not just something you disagreed with, but that was of a nature, or created a reaction in others, that made you doubt?
Has there ever been an issue that so passionately and completely unites PB.com as the lack of merit in the claim of the Waspi women?
I think it even surpasses, in its ability to generate boo-hisses, the SMO of Vladimir Putin.
It annoys me mainly because of equality. It was ludicrous that women got the state pension earlie4 than men, so equalising it had to be done. And then the nove was introduced with plenty of time to get used to the idea. To claim that they weren’t warned is ridiculous. Watch the news, read a paper, talk to a financial planner, or citizens advice. But I cannot accept sticking heads in the sand and then claiming it’s all so unfair.
I am 100 % for equality but it cuts both ways.
But how much does it annoy you? It's the PB intensity on the matter I find interesting.
Has there ever been an issue that so passionately and completely unites PB.com as the lack of merit in the claim of the Waspi women?
I think it even surpasses, in its ability to generate boo-hisses, the SMO of Vladimir Putin.
It annoys me mainly because of equality. It was ludicrous that women got the state pension earlie4 than men, so equalising it had to be done. And then the nove was introduced with plenty of time to get used to the idea. To claim that they weren’t warned is ridiculous. Watch the news, read a paper, talk to a financial planner, or citizens advice. But I cannot accept sticking heads in the sand and then claiming it’s all so unfair.
I am 100 % for equality but it cuts both ways.
But how much does it annoy you? It's the PB intensity on the matter I find interesting.
I suppose that, by definition, people on PB are not unaware of what's going on around them politically, so when we come across a group of people who claim something was sprung on them without warning when we know it wasn't, it does lead to a certain impatience.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling · 42m Every single person who still cringes at the memory of trying to bullshit their way through an interview or exam question: today, the slate is wiped clean. Set down your burden of shame. Nothing - nothing, I say - could touch this.
Keir Starmer and his Attorney General are still trying to open up prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans.
Is it any surprise that they're not taking our country's security seriously, when this is how they treat people who've risked their lives to keep us safe?
Risked their lives? I guess Soldier F could have got a nasty blister from the amount of rounds he fired on Bloody Sunday.
Someone wanted the army sent in to shoot the rioters yesterday. Is soldier F busy, or can he do consultancy?
If my memory serves me, his conclusion as to what constituted a rioter wasn't fantastic, although he turned out to be a brilliant recruiting sergeant for top drawer Nationalist rioters and bone fide terrorists. Is that the sort of experience and quality you had in mind?
I was being sarcastic. The suggestion that the Army shooting at rioters would improve the situation. Or indeed The Peace Process.
Which is, apparently, sacred.
So was I. Personally as a regular visitor to the Northern part of the Emerald Isle I wouldn't dick about with the GFA either.
I still reject the idea that the GFA necessarily includes non-prosecution of criminals for murder, mass drug dealing, bank robberies and arson with side order of racism.
That wasn’t what we voted for. The politicians just found peace at any price the easy way forward.
EDIT: note the firebomb attack in Manchester. The Peace Process visiting the mainland?
Sorry, but have you gone completely loony? The Peace Process has nothing to do with the firebombing of an imam in Manchester.
I am drawing a line between scum doing racist firebombing in Northern Ireland and scum doing racist firebombing in Manchester.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
Remember all the EDL/BNP/etc efforts to pal up with the Community Leaders in NI?
To the racist scum here, the Peace Process style is what they want. Power for them. on the streets.
I know. You keep repeating yourself. But it's still bonkers.
It's not bonkers to state that the Community Leaders have been given qualified immunity to Carry On Being Criminal. They have.
It's not bonkers to point out that this now includes ethnic cleansing. It does
It's not bonkers to point out the frequent attempts by the extreme right, in the UK, to join up with the Ulster paramilitaries. See stories in the Guardian and BBC.
If you let the scum be scum, you get scummy behaviour.
Sure. But my reading of your view based on the many posts we've had on it in the last few days is as follows:
The Northern Island peace process, which ended the thirty year orgy of sectarian violence known as the Troubles, was in fact a straight up appeasement of sectarian violence. The persistence of sectarian violence today, albeit at vastly reduced levels, proves this and shows what a big mistake it was.
It's an odd view but clearly a passionate one. I sense there's a personal axe in this for you. Would that be right?
No, the Peace Process *was* a political settlement, in which both sides agreed to use democratic norms to settle differences, by getting elected to an assembly and forming a partnership government.
The Men of Violence were persuaded to stop murdering by a combination of force and the offer of jobs.
As the peace process progressed, the MoV pushed against what they saw as annoying things. Like being arrested for entirely civilian crimes.
The response of the Governments in London and Dublin was to give them whatever they wanted. So, after each riot or permeative terroristic attack, the police were pulled back further and investigations were dropped. The alternative was not an instant return to WAR!!!! but some possibility of violence, if the investigations were continued.
This appeasement then created a situation in which the social democratic politicians were seen as increasingly irrelevant, on the streets. So the SDLP gave way to SF and in Unionist politics, the ratchet followed, as the UUP faded, the DUP came in etc etc.
The final result of this ratcheting of the appeasement is that racist firebombing of homes is not a prosecutable crime.
Ok. That's a clearer explanation. And the personal axe? Was I right about that?
It's not a particularly rational explanation. Surely the greater good has been achieved through the GFA.
Chasing down evil bastard sectarians of both flavours sadly seems not worth the deaths and maimings resulting in the Europa Hotel continuing to be blown up every few months.
That assumes that prosecuting individuals for "civilian" crimes would lead straight back to war.
According to that logic, if I want my mainland crime syndicate to be untouched, I should just threaten to bomb the Savoy each year, until the police stop investigating me.
So don't complain about the racist firebombing. Perhaps we should celebrate them?
For The Greater Good.
I have no desire to see Loyalist and Republican criminals getting away with murder, but if they promise to never do it again, are as good as their word and several thousands people who would otherwise have died if the sectarian criminals hadn't made that promise live to tell the tail, reluctantly I would live with it.
I think you're mixing up two issues.
As part of the GFA, we decided to not to go after the MoV for their former activities, prior to the GFA, in return for them ceasing to be MoV. That was unpalatable, but probably necessary.
What we've also done, in practice, is give the MoV a degree of immunity from investigation for crimes committed post GFA. This is very much not OK, because ultimately it's allowing the MoV to continue to exert control via thier violence. Thus we arrive at the point where we sentence English people who may have posted unkind things about on Twitter about immigrants more harshly than the MoV who have been pulling the strings behind the latest round of burning people out of their houses in Belfast.
(I'm actually in NI this week, I encountered a load of stuff dumped and set on fire at a junction on the A55 in East Belfast on my way through on Tuesday night, which was a bit surreal when you're not used to that sort of thing - presumably in some way connected to the protests).
Thanks for the summary. While the police may be taking a different approach in Belfast, @Malmesbury is exaggerating. Multiple people have been arrested and charged in Belfast.
Multiple junior spides. The men in masks handing out lists of houses to target - nope. The men behind them? They had lunch at Stormont.
Who had lunch at Stormont? The AMs associated with Unionist paramilitaries all lost their seats years back.
Has there ever been an issue that so passionately and completely unites PB.com as the lack of merit in the claim of the Waspi women?
I think it even surpasses, in its ability to generate boo-hisses, the SMO of Vladimir Putin.
I'll be that guy because somebody should. I actually think some WASPI woman do have a good, albeit narrower, claim.
There have been two main pension age increases affecting women. The first in the 1990s equalised pension age with men. It was phased in gradually and everyone had at least 15 years notice of the change. It equalised men and women, which is a good thing and everyone had plenty of notice.
The second change after 2010 saw pension age increase for both men and women from 65 to 67. The problems here were firstly the 60 to 65 transition hadn't completed and was in fact speeded up with the 65 to 67 transition layered on top. This would result in some women having to work 3 years longer than under the initial plan.
The second problem was that only 5 years was given for the change. The change was immediately challenged, ultimately leading to a cap of 18 months additional increase in retirement age. By this point the 5 years notice period was over, during which no-one was informed of the changes officially because it wasn't known what the changes were actually going to be. The result was women hit with a year of so of no pension with no effective notice.
So while the first change was text-book, the goverment badly botched the second one. They should have as a minimum restarted the 5 year clock. Given they didn't, it would be reasonable to compensate the relatively small numbers of women who lost out. It would also have been a relatively limited amount of money in total. Because of the politics of WASPI ,that wasn't going to happen and the ship has now sailed.
Comments
Starmer's defiant I am going nowhere comments on the BBC sounded like the last throw of the dice
I expect this time next week Burnham will have won, and next weekend will see Starmer's cabinet tell him time is up
This farcical situation has to come to an end swiftly, as the paralysis and absurd comments in the media by Starmer's loyalists are simply embarrassing and making us a laughing stock
I assume had there been no by election next week, Starmer would already be on his way to Charlie
Case in point: the Prime Minister just said defence is "a number one priority".
Growth was meant to the number one priority, is it still?
There's not enough money for defence, but today the Government announced £4.5 BILLION for walking and cycling.
Make choices. Decide. Lead.
If you’re 45 when you get the news the amount you need to put away extra at that age to make it up in the remaining 20 years could be a big hit on someone on a low wage. I an no actuary but I know the later you leave it the harder it gets.
Peter.
* “As always with the prime minister, he is unable to make sound political and timely decisions
* “Funding the defence investment plan requires cuts to elements of government spending vital to growth - a key issue obviously this country needs to work on"
* “This was flagged to No 10 in May and as usual he is a rabbit in the headlights and does not make a decision"
* “Prioritise growth funding or defence spending - take a decision”
https://www.thetimes.com/article/ed817bc1-b390-47f1-909c-329ef8a486f7?shareToken=024e411c4dd5425dbe3e7afe5960e61d ..."
Steven Swinford Jun 12, 2026 · 9:35 AM UTC, see https://xcancel.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2065367263608275143#m
The equalisation of the age was justified and everyone had sufficient notice
https://x.com/theipaper/status/2065472355338441136
Hardly a victim.
Taz
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e0a7e35bc48fc52a
Imaginator Clare Coutinho and Richard Stupid Tice are on top form:
Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said the rule changes were tantamount to “Soviet-level intrusion”, saying “our lives are being dictated by net zero legislation”.
She added: “Ed Miliband wants to tell you how long your towel rail can be switched on. He’s already decided how you are allowed to dry your pyjamas and now he wants to make it harder to have underfloor heating in your home.”
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, accused the Energy Secretary of making households “cold and miserable” to meet climate goals.
He said: “Mad Miliband’s latest net zero push to restrict underfloor heating and electric towel rails is utter madness. Even the Romans had underfloor heating.
“This Orwellian move could mean families in the 21st century having to limit the time they spend keeping their homes warm or drying their clothes.
“Labour is choosing to focus on tone-deaf green ideology rather than bringing down household costs.”
On top of Thatcher being in power, too much to bear.
Poor from Wes. Gone off him now. If you're going to do brutalist minimalism in language you should at least make it scan.
It's pathetic.
In 2026, we are being confronted with if not a similar choice then an equally significant one. To what extent are we prepared to compromise the kind of welfare state we now have in order to defend said state from a threat which may or may not materialise? To what extent equally should any Government be prepared to raise taxes to pay for the defence of the country?
I also see it's being framed as welfare spending vs defence spending while it could equally be framed as additional tax revenue vs defence spending.
They should quite rightly be told to leave in a copulating manner, in the original Anglo-Saxon.
Casino.
A really strong leader with good political skills could have sold WFA cuts.
Goodness me, all sorts of benefits were cut by the coalition during 2010-2012 and they came back.
I think it even surpasses, in its ability to generate boo-hisses, the SMO of Vladimir Putin.
ETA: Besides, the coalition cut benefits for the young, the unwashed and middle-class families with children. Benefits for core Conservative voters (i.e. the old) were steadily inflated by the Triple Lock.
I will pay any price.
Had they for simple announced they were withdrawing WFA from higher rate taxpayers, there'd have been a lot of grumbling but most would probably have accepted it and it certainly wouldn't have resonated.
This was further complicated by the "freebies" issue which was of course over egged completely by the opposition media but nonetheless made the new Government look a) no better than its predecessor and b) the juxtaposition of Labour MPs accepting freebies while removing WFA from poor pensioners was about as bad as it gets in presentational terms.
It is true that Starmer struggles to make decisions, but that's a pitifully dishonest briefing. Is it Reeves ?
It's a mark of Starmer's weak position that he can't either face her down or sack her.
I wouldn't pay any price, but I would give it a higher priority than does the current shower.
Welfare v Defence? Fuck off with that. Tax/Spend is fungible.
There is, I think, a serious issue about whether the £66 billion currently allocated to defence is being spent wisely and effectively and I think before committing to further funding, we need to be very clear about how the money is spent, on what and there is trnasparency about for example procurement (where possible).
We can and do critique money spent on the NHS as being a bottomless pit but why shouldn't we apply the same rigour and indeed scepticism to defence expenditure?
And the real argument- between that nonsense and the reality that we need both and need to work out how to pay for them (spoiler: UK tax on comfortable normies has been unsustainably low for a couple of generations now)- is far to unpleasant to contemplate.
Another £20 billion should cover it.
Dark times.
Vienna was a decent track too.
Even if truth and reconciliation is a pretty shite tradeoff I think the GFA is worth it.
I often think we need to just get on with it, accept that sometimes mistakes might be made, but deal with that in a grown-up way when it happens. Trying to do everything perfectly, with zero mistakes or waste, often seems to guarantee masses of waste and delay.
taz
https://x.com/dan_sheldon_/status/2065477729529499841?s=61
Is there no end to the reasons why he should not be prime minister?
Raise taxes to pay for the growing benefits bill
The clinically fed up need their money
See the money flow.
I am 100 % for equality but it cuts both ways.
I mean, does he think the Beatles were from the Soviet Union?
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/DaEoP/?v=2
https://youtu.be/8JDkdc246QQ?t=86&is=1BK9clxNUvQQ3d3B ?
TIMES EXCLUSIVE: NEW MAKERFIELD POLL
BURNHAM 45%
REFORM 40%
RESTORE 8%
More in Common/UCL Policy Lab, 28 May-12 June, 515 adults
UK and Canada in talks on defense bank and fighter jet programs
Gordon Brown — the ex-PM who is now advising No. 10 Downing Street on global finance — spoke to Canadian PM Mark Carney about the scheme
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-canada-defense-bank-fighter-jet-programs-talks/
edit for typo
J.K. Rowling
@jk_rowling
·
42m
Every single person who still cringes at the memory of trying to bullshit their way through an interview or exam question: today, the slate is wiped clean. Set down your burden of shame. Nothing - nothing, I say - could touch this.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2065495103511097382
Fuck Bosnia and its fans
Fuck Bosnia and its fans
Ethan Croft
@EthanCroft98
NEW Wes Streeting pulls no punches in his latest intervention over the resignations of John Healey and Al Carns from the MOD
In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman he says:
“Poor leadership, poor judgement and bad politics” from Keir Starmer to blame for the current crisis
Their departures show “this is not a government that is open to ideas; this is not a government that is willing to draw on expertise”
Attacks on Healey are “juvenile” and shows govt insiders’ “total unseriousness about the scale of the challenge facing the country”
Says way the Defence Investment Plan was carried out was “not the way to treat your defence secretary”
That the row “underscores the case for change [of leader] and change quickly because we can't go through any more of this inertia.”
https://x.com/EthanCroft98/status/2065479339278250058
NEW THREAD
There have been two main pension age increases affecting women. The first in the 1990s equalised pension age with men. It was phased in gradually and everyone had at least 15 years notice of the change. It equalised men and women, which is a good thing and everyone had plenty of notice.
The second change after 2010 saw pension age increase for both men and women from 65 to 67. The problems here were firstly the 60 to 65 transition hadn't completed and was in fact speeded up with the 65 to 67 transition layered on top. This would result in some women having to work 3 years longer than under the initial plan.
The second problem was that only 5 years was given for the change. The change was immediately challenged, ultimately leading to a cap of 18 months additional increase in retirement age. By this point the 5 years notice period was over, during which no-one was informed of the changes officially because it wasn't known what the changes were actually going to be. The result was women hit with a year of so of no pension with no effective notice.
So while the first change was text-book, the goverment badly botched the second one. They should have as a minimum restarted the 5 year clock. Given they didn't, it would be reasonable to compensate the relatively small numbers of women who lost out. It would also have been a relatively limited amount of money in total. Because of the politics of WASPI ,that wasn't going to happen and the ship has now sailed.