Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
'The sister of US Senator Lindsey Graham will serve as his temporary replacement after the South Carolina lawmaker died from an aortic tear on Saturday.
Darline Graham Nordone was formally chosen by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster on Monday, who introduced her as Graham's "darling little sister" who would "finish his work for him now".
"It is such an honour. Lindsey has always been there for me and now I will be there for him," Nordone said.'
Lindsay, aged 22, adopted his sister after she became an orphan at 13, to avoid her going into ‘care’. He had joined the military, and Darlene went to the military family school.
There’s something of a tradition in the US of allowing a close family member, most often a widow, to temporarily take the place of someone who dies in office pending a by-election.
There will now be a special Republican primary, to choose a candidate for the ballot in November where Graham was due to stand for another term of office.
I have to say they're not selling this concept of Heaven to me. Perhaps if our Father's House has many mansions we can avoid the Reform mansion using a celestial booking.com
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They have a suspect in custody, as I understand it. That doesn't feel like failure to me. How about we leave them alone to do their job.
I agree
Using Widdecome's death to score points is distasteful
Err, no. You don't get to tell people what they can and can't talk about. The police and the likes of Hodges have behaved disgracefully.
I wouldn't trust a copper further than I can throw this car I am sitting in, but they can't win with the PB right.
The PB right always want to know the ethnicity of the suspect so they told you the guy was white British, He was white British so they didn't racially profile him and immediately grab for the political terrorism klaxon. As far as procedure is concerned I don't see what more they could have done.
All they had to say is that they did not know the motive of the attack and investigations were ongoing. Saying specifically that there was no evidence of it being politically motivated gave the impression that they did know what had gone on (e.g. they think she knew her attacker).
It's not the police's fault if people can't understand the difference in meaning between "there is currently no evidence of X" and "we have evidence that categorically rules out X". Why not just wait until their investigation is concluded and someone is charged for this horrific crime?
I'm not sure if there was a "currently" in there, and it was said after it was known the suspect had driven from Rotherham and back, so it was not just a burglary gone wrong and something was up.
My archeologist friends would say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but we are so used to it being used as a non-denial denial (which journalists don't call people out on) that a firm statement of lack of evidence is taken as a denial.
Why police just say they don't know, I don't know. It's not their job to ascribe motive, that's for the prosecutor (to decide if terrorism charges are justified) and the court to decide.
Here is what is in the Guardian report:
Over the weekend, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, Matt Longman, told reporters: “At this point there is still no information to suggest that this is a terrorism-related incident and at this point we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this murder. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that it was politically motivated.”
Note the "at this point" and "at this stage".
But why focus on that possibility. Why not also say "At this stage, there is nothing to suggest this was a domestic incident."? Or that it was not a burglary.
I have to say they're not selling this concept of Heaven to me. Perhaps if our Father's House has many mansions we can avoid the Reform mansion using a celestial booking.com
I fear that the difference between Heaven and Hell is that, in Heaven, one would have the grace to treat your political opponents who were there with compassion and patience, but in Hell one would spend eternity boiling with frustration.
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
When I was working in railway signalling IT, there was a manager who simply could not pronounce the word signal. It always came out single. I wondered whether that was something to do with a speech defect, rather than just being a malapropism.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They have a suspect in custody, as I understand it. That doesn't feel like failure to me. How about we leave them alone to do their job.
I agree
Using Widdecome's death to score points is distasteful
Err, no. You don't get to tell people what they can and can't talk about. The police and the likes of Hodges have behaved disgracefully.
I wouldn't trust a copper further than I can throw this car I am sitting in, but they can't win with the PB right.
The PB right always want to know the ethnicity of the suspect so they told you the guy was white British, He was white British so they didn't racially profile him and immediately grab for the political terrorism klaxon. As far as procedure is concerned I don't see what more they could have done.
All they had to say is that they did not know the motive of the attack and investigations were ongoing. Saying specifically that there was no evidence of it being politically motivated gave the impression that they did know what had gone on (e.g. they think she knew her attacker).
It's not the police's fault if people can't understand the difference in meaning between "there is currently no evidence of X" and "we have evidence that categorically rules out X". Why not just wait until their investigation is concluded and someone is charged for this horrific crime?
I'm not sure if there was a "currently" in there, and it was said after it was known the suspect had driven from Rotherham and back, so it was not just a burglary gone wrong and something was up.
My archeologist friends would say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but we are so used to it being used as a non-denial denial (which journalists don't call people out on) that a firm statement of lack of evidence is taken as a denial.
Why police just say they don't know, I don't know. It's not their job to ascribe motive, that's for the prosecutor (to decide if terrorism charges are justified) and the court to decide.
Here is what is in the Guardian report:
Over the weekend, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, Matt Longman, told reporters: “At this point there is still no information to suggest that this is a terrorism-related incident and at this point we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this murder. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that it was politically motivated.”
Note the "at this point" and "at this stage".
But why focus on that possibility. Why not also say "At this stage, there is nothing to suggest this was a domestic incident."? Or that it was not a burglary.
Could that be because those were the questions that they were being asked?
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
It largely depends if Burnham wins the next general election or not. If he doesn't then Farage or Badenoch would be next PM. If he does then it depends how long Labour remains ahead in the polls, if the right reunite and they fall behind in the polls it might be a more centrist New Labour figure like Streeting who replaces him rather than just more leftism with Ed Miliband or Rayner
Who will win the next election is a game of elimination. It is pretty universally agreed on the centre ground that no-one deserves to, but there will of course be a PM after the next election.
It's a subject for Sherlock's great dictum (true of course only if slightly amended, but the point is clear):
when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
As it can only be the leader of Lab/Con/Ref it is simple.
It can't be Reform because they can't win. It can't be Kemi because she isn't PM material and she can't win and there is no-one decent to replace her. So it's Labour, or Labour led, which means almost 100% certainly Burnham. DYOR.
It could be Reform if they got back up to 25 to 30%+ consistently. It could be the Tories if Kemi translates her 27% favourable rating to Conservative voteshare. It could also of course be Burnham if he got Labour to a bounce approaching 30% and held it
It could be Reform but it won't be. It could be Kemi, but it won't. Elimination leaves Labour, IMO. All betting, and all opinion about the future, rests on an assessment of how what is not the case now will become the case in due course. DYOR, especially as I am usually wrong.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They have a suspect in custody, as I understand it. That doesn't feel like failure to me. How about we leave them alone to do their job.
I agree
Using Widdecome's death to score points is distasteful
Err, no. You don't get to tell people what they can and can't talk about. The police and the likes of Hodges have behaved disgracefully.
I wouldn't trust a copper further than I can throw this car I am sitting in, but they can't win with the PB right.
The PB right always want to know the ethnicity of the suspect so they told you the guy was white British, He was white British so they didn't racially profile him and immediately grab for the political terrorism klaxon. As far as procedure is concerned I don't see what more they could have done.
All they had to say is that they did not know the motive of the attack and investigations were ongoing. Saying specifically that there was no evidence of it being politically motivated gave the impression that they did know what had gone on (e.g. they think she knew her attacker).
It's not the police's fault if people can't understand the difference in meaning between "there is currently no evidence of X" and "we have evidence that categorically rules out X". Why not just wait until their investigation is concluded and someone is charged for this horrific crime?
I'm not sure if there was a "currently" in there, and it was said after it was known the suspect had driven from Rotherham and back, so it was not just a burglary gone wrong and something was up.
My archeologist friends would say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but we are so used to it being used as a non-denial denial (which journalists don't call people out on) that a firm statement of lack of evidence is taken as a denial.
Why police just say they don't know, I don't know. It's not their job to ascribe motive, that's for the prosecutor (to decide if terrorism charges are justified) and the court to decide.
Here is what is in the Guardian report:
Over the weekend, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, Matt Longman, told reporters: “At this point there is still no information to suggest that this is a terrorism-related incident and at this point we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this murder. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that it was politically motivated.”
Note the "at this point" and "at this stage".
But why focus on that possibility. Why not also say "At this stage, there is nothing to suggest this was a domestic incident."? Or that it was not a burglary.
Probably because people were asking them about that. They said at this stage they had no evidence to support that. Now they obviously have additional evidence that points this way. I don't understand the confected outrage about this. They are investigating the crime, and like many investigations it is complex with new evidence creating new angles and lines of enquiry. They have a suspect in custody. They are doing their job.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They have a suspect in custody, as I understand it. That doesn't feel like failure to me. How about we leave them alone to do their job.
I agree
Using Widdecome's death to score points is distasteful
Err, no. You don't get to tell people what they can and can't talk about. The police and the likes of Hodges have behaved disgracefully.
I wouldn't trust a copper further than I can throw this car I am sitting in, but they can't win with the PB right.
The PB right always want to know the ethnicity of the suspect so they told you the guy was white British, He was white British so they didn't racially profile him and immediately grab for the political terrorism klaxon. As far as procedure is concerned I don't see what more they could have done.
All they had to say is that they did not know the motive of the attack and investigations were ongoing. Saying specifically that there was no evidence of it being politically motivated gave the impression that they did know what had gone on (e.g. they think she knew her attacker).
It's not the police's fault if people can't understand the difference in meaning between "there is currently no evidence of X" and "we have evidence that categorically rules out X". Why not just wait until their investigation is concluded and someone is charged for this horrific crime?
I'm not sure if there was a "currently" in there, and it was said after it was known the suspect had driven from Rotherham and back, so it was not just a burglary gone wrong and something was up.
My archeologist friends would say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but we are so used to it being used as a non-denial denial (which journalists don't call people out on) that a firm statement of lack of evidence is taken as a denial.
Why police just say they don't know, I don't know. It's not their job to ascribe motive, that's for the prosecutor (to decide if terrorism charges are justified) and the court to decide.
Here is what is in the Guardian report:
Over the weekend, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, Matt Longman, told reporters: “At this point there is still no information to suggest that this is a terrorism-related incident and at this point we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this murder. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that it was politically motivated.”
Note the "at this point" and "at this stage".
But why focus on that possibility. Why not also say "At this stage, there is nothing to suggest this was a domestic incident."? Or that it was not a burglary.
Could that be because those were the questions that they were being asked?
Did they take questions from journalists? (honest question).
As I said earlier, the possibility of it being a random killing is probably the thing that the police needed to comment on because it's the most concerning one for the public.
But deep down, I don't think anyone was scared because as humans we are good at asking "how likely is it?"
EDIT: I was saying that the most likely outcome was it was a family member who did it. Once the police think it's someone else, well, we all know the most likely outcome.
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They have a suspect in custody, as I understand it. That doesn't feel like failure to me. How about we leave them alone to do their job.
I agree
Using Widdecome's death to score points is distasteful
Err, no. You don't get to tell people what they can and can't talk about. The police and the likes of Hodges have behaved disgracefully.
I wouldn't trust a copper further than I can throw this car I am sitting in, but they can't win with the PB right.
The PB right always want to know the ethnicity of the suspect so they told you the guy was white British, He was white British so they didn't racially profile him and immediately grab for the political terrorism klaxon. As far as procedure is concerned I don't see what more they could have done.
All they had to say is that they did not know the motive of the attack and investigations were ongoing. Saying specifically that there was no evidence of it being politically motivated gave the impression that they did know what had gone on (e.g. they think she knew her attacker).
It's not the police's fault if people can't understand the difference in meaning between "there is currently no evidence of X" and "we have evidence that categorically rules out X". Why not just wait until their investigation is concluded and someone is charged for this horrific crime?
I'm not sure if there was a "currently" in there, and it was said after it was known the suspect had driven from Rotherham and back, so it was not just a burglary gone wrong and something was up.
My archeologist friends would say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but we are so used to it being used as a non-denial denial (which journalists don't call people out on) that a firm statement of lack of evidence is taken as a denial.
Why police just say they don't know, I don't know. It's not their job to ascribe motive, that's for the prosecutor (to decide if terrorism charges are justified) and the court to decide.
Here is what is in the Guardian report:
Over the weekend, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, Matt Longman, told reporters: “At this point there is still no information to suggest that this is a terrorism-related incident and at this point we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this murder. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that it was politically motivated.”
Note the "at this point" and "at this stage".
But why focus on that possibility. Why not also say "At this stage, there is nothing to suggest this was a domestic incident."? Or that it was not a burglary.
Probably because people were asking them about that. They said at this stage they had no evidence to support that. Now they obviously have additional evidence that points this way. I don't understand the confected outrage about this. They are investigating the crime, and like many investigations it is complex with new evidence creating new angles and lines of enquiry. They have a suspect in custody. They are doing their job.
You’re forgetting that their primary job is to say exactly the right things to reassure the far right that they’re on their side. Catching the criminal is secondary.
Remember that under far right government the police have a somewhat “different” role in society. They need to get with the programme.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They have a suspect in custody, as I understand it. That doesn't feel like failure to me. How about we leave them alone to do their job.
I agree
Using Widdecome's death to score points is distasteful
Err, no. You don't get to tell people what they can and can't talk about. The police and the likes of Hodges have behaved disgracefully.
I wouldn't trust a copper further than I can throw this car I am sitting in, but they can't win with the PB right.
The PB right always want to know the ethnicity of the suspect so they told you the guy was white British, He was white British so they didn't racially profile him and immediately grab for the political terrorism klaxon. As far as procedure is concerned I don't see what more they could have done.
All they had to say is that they did not know the motive of the attack and investigations were ongoing. Saying specifically that there was no evidence of it being politically motivated gave the impression that they did know what had gone on (e.g. they think she knew her attacker).
It's not the police's fault if people can't understand the difference in meaning between "there is currently no evidence of X" and "we have evidence that categorically rules out X". Why not just wait until their investigation is concluded and someone is charged for this horrific crime?
I'm not sure if there was a "currently" in there, and it was said after it was known the suspect had driven from Rotherham and back, so it was not just a burglary gone wrong and something was up.
My archeologist friends would say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but we are so used to it being used as a non-denial denial (which journalists don't call people out on) that a firm statement of lack of evidence is taken as a denial.
Why police just say they don't know, I don't know. It's not their job to ascribe motive, that's for the prosecutor (to decide if terrorism charges are justified) and the court to decide.
Here is what is in the Guardian report:
Over the weekend, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, Matt Longman, told reporters: “At this point there is still no information to suggest that this is a terrorism-related incident and at this point we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this murder. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that it was politically motivated.”
Note the "at this point" and "at this stage".
But why focus on that possibility. Why not also say "At this stage, there is nothing to suggest this was a domestic incident."? Or that it was not a burglary.
Could that be because those were the questions that they were being asked?
Did they take questions from journalists? (honest question).
As I said earlier, the possibility of it being a random killing is probably the thing that the police needed to comment on because it's the most concerning one for the public.
But deep down, I don't think anyone was scared because as humans we are good at asking "how likely is it?"
EDIT: I was saying that the most likely outcome was it was a family member who did it. Once the police think it's someone else, well, we all know the most likely outcome.
I don't know if they did at the press conference, but it's a normal thing that the media do, to ask a question about the story they want to write about.
Malmesbury and others will be greatly cheered by this from the excellent Joshua Rozenberg showing that the gigantic process and regulatory state not only provides a decent number of comfortable jobs for the boys but has the added attraction that it doesn't work, leading to further investigation into the regulators (answering Juvenal's great question 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' namely, an infinite regress of regulators) which will surely result in further and better paid and worse regulatory structures.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
It is one of the differences that I have with the estimable @Cyclefree. She appears to believe more regulation is the way forward, my experience is that regulation, and the creation of quasi autonomous bureaucracies like the LSB and many others in that diagram, often makes things worse. It emphasises form over substance and creates lots of additional cost with minimal reward. Our regulatory sector is, in my view, a serious and underrated impediment to growth in this country.
The big problem I think is a system of private and quasi-independent state monopolies that depends on regulation to function properly, where the regulators simply aren't to to the task. I am thinking eg OFWAT, OFCOM.
Simply abolishing them would have a limited effect but isn't a solution either.
Also functions such as building inspection, which appears to now be limited to checking mountains of paperwork, rather than, as a random example, that the building wall isn’t covered in flammable cladding.
So why do we do it this way?
I suspect the answer is something like- the public wants the regulations but doesn't want to pay for boots-on-the-ground regulators.
So we have placebo regulation by paperwork instead. Because who is going to win an election on a platform of spending more on Trading Standards and Building Control?
I’m at a loss as to why people think building control don’t visits sites - they do
When it comes to material it’s harder because you need to know the composition of the material and that is going to be we are installing these show label and go online to check the composition - because destructive tests are very expensive
The visits are cursory. Hence accounts of insulation missing on all the houses but the one inspected.
Or concrete pours that fail strength criteria. For lack of testing.
This is their own account of one of killings, which looks very much like a confession of murder to me.
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2076798878595342620 On July 13, 2026, at approximately 7:00 AM ET, ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residence in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon.
The driver of the vehicle was struck, and emergency services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries.
The Biddeford Police Department and FBI responded to the scene. DHS OIG has been notified and like all discharge of firearms this will be investigated. This is a developing situation, and we will update the public when more information is available.
26 year old, with work permit and social security number, and his three year old kid in the car...
A car is capable of being used as a lethal weapon, depending on the circumstances, shooting the driver may be reasonable. We are pussies about reasonable force in self-defence in the UK.
In contrast to previous cases, they don't claim it was being used as a weapon (and eye witness video confirms it wasn't), or that the shooter feared for his own safety . There's no case for "reasonable self defence" in a situation instigated by the shooter, and where on his own evidence he shot someone simply for driving away.
It's not being a "pussy" to question giving government thugs effectively unlimited immunity to kill people.
They are claiming public safety, ie someone else's life was at risk.
Yes it may be bullshit but is a possible defence.
They present zero evidence for that, and there is none. The guy had his three year old kid in the car and wasn't even the immigrant they were targeting.
You're effectively saying immigration officers should have license to shoot anyone, on the flimsiest of pretexts.
I propose the word “Anankean” ( ἀνάγκη ) for “horrible but inevitable”
This is their own account of one of killings, which looks very much like a confession of murder to me.
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2076798878595342620 On July 13, 2026, at approximately 7:00 AM ET, ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residence in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon.
The driver of the vehicle was struck, and emergency services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries.
The Biddeford Police Department and FBI responded to the scene. DHS OIG has been notified and like all discharge of firearms this will be investigated. This is a developing situation, and we will update the public when more information is available.
26 year old, with work permit and social security number, and his three year old kid in the car...
A car is capable of being used as a lethal weapon, depending on the circumstances, shooting the driver may be reasonable. We are pussies about reasonable force in self-defence in the UK.
In contrast to previous cases, they don't claim it was being used as a weapon (and eye witness video confirms it wasn't), or that the shooter feared for his own safety . There's no case for "reasonable self defence" in a situation instigated by the shooter, and where on his own evidence he shot someone simply for driving away.
It's not being a "pussy" to question giving government thugs effectively unlimited immunity to kill people.
They are claiming public safety, ie someone else's life was at risk.
Yes it may be bullshit but is a possible defence.
Sounds good to me - every driver who close passes me on a cycle gets a round to the back of the head.
There was no clear public safety question from the account.
It amounts to "He was driving away, so we shot him."
They may have been coloured by Trump and his munchkins' consistent lies about 'they are killers and rapists".
US police do not afaics place much weight on public safety, even those police services which are not Trump's militia.
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
Malmesbury and others will be greatly cheered by this from the excellent Joshua Rozenberg showing that the gigantic process and regulatory state not only provides a decent number of comfortable jobs for the boys but has the added attraction that it doesn't work, leading to further investigation into the regulators (answering Juvenal's great question 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' namely, an infinite regress of regulators) which will surely result in further and better paid and worse regulatory structures.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
It is one of the differences that I have with the estimable @Cyclefree. She appears to believe more regulation is the way forward, my experience is that regulation, and the creation of quasi autonomous bureaucracies like the LSB and many others in that diagram, often makes things worse. It emphasises form over substance and creates lots of additional cost with minimal reward. Our regulatory sector is, in my view, a serious and underrated impediment to growth in this country.
The big problem I think is a system of private and quasi-independent state monopolies that depends on regulation to function properly, where the regulators simply aren't to to the task. I am thinking eg OFWAT, OFCOM.
Simply abolishing them would have a limited effect but isn't a solution either.
Also functions such as building inspection, which appears to now be limited to checking mountains of paperwork, rather than, as a random example, that the building wall isn’t covered in flammable cladding.
So why do we do it this way?
I suspect the answer is something like- the public wants the regulations but doesn't want to pay for boots-on-the-ground regulators.
So we have placebo regulation by paperwork instead. Because who is going to win an election on a platform of spending more on Trading Standards and Building Control?
I’m at a loss as to why people think building control don’t visits sites - they do
When it comes to material it’s harder because you need to know the composition of the material and that is going to be we are installing these show label and go online to check the composition - because destructive tests are very expensive
The visits are cursory. Hence accounts of insulation missing on all the houses but the one inspected.
Or concrete pours that fail strength criteria. For lack of testing.
Building control is largely done by private contractors these days, not by council departments, I can't remember which government relaxed the rules. This leads to inevitable problems, as an inspector may become dependent on a single client for the majority of their income, and hence be less likely to find fault. This can happen even at very low levels: when we had our loft conversion done, the bc inspection was done by a guy who was nominally independent but 90% of his income came from a single company.
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
He was - not so long ago - a Cameroonian tory when that looked like the thing to be. He would have smiled/nodded at "loons, fruitcakes, closet racists" to describe Reform when it was called Ukip. Now, for pure pursuit-of-power reasons, he's gone over to them and comes out with this sort of bollox pretty much 24/7. Slick with it too. He really is a slimeball. In some ways worse than his boss. To the extent we have a JD Vance, Jenrick is it.
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
He was - not so long ago - a Cameroonian tory when that looked like the thing to be. He would have smiled/nodded at "loons, fruitcakes, closet racists" to describe Reform when it was called Ukip. Now, for pure pursuit-of-power reasons, he's gone over to them and comes out with this sort of bollox pretty much 24/7. Slick with it too. He really is a slimeball. In some ways worse than his boss. To the extent we have a JD Vance, Jenrick is it.
Just as no-one who looks at him for more than a minute believes Farage is 'anti-establishment'. He went to a private ("public") school and IIRC his daughters went a to a private school.
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
He was - not so long ago - a Cameroonian tory when that looked like the thing to be. He would have smiled/nodded at "loons, fruitcakes, closet racists" to describe Reform when it was called Ukip. Now, for pure pursuit-of-power reasons, he's gone over to them and comes out with this sort of bollox pretty much 24/7. Slick with it too. He really is a slimeball. In some ways worse than his boss. To the extent we have a JD Vance, Jenrick is it.
Just as no-one who looks at him for more than a minute believes Farage is 'anti-establishment'. He went to a private ("public") school and IIRC his daughters went a to a private school.
I surprising number of "anti-establishment" eco-loony lot, muscians who fight the system, etc are privately educated....just saying. In fact, it seems like it a prerequiste these days to come from a priviledged background, as those that don't are too busy trying to make rent to be gluing themselves to pavements.
But Farage's I am just a poor boy routine is obviously nonsense. And Bobby J's tribute act is even more nonsensical because at least Farage can say he has taken the non-mainstream political concensus position throughout his political career.
Malmesbury and others will be greatly cheered by this from the excellent Joshua Rozenberg showing that the gigantic process and regulatory state not only provides a decent number of comfortable jobs for the boys but has the added attraction that it doesn't work, leading to further investigation into the regulators (answering Juvenal's great question 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' namely, an infinite regress of regulators) which will surely result in further and better paid and worse regulatory structures.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
It is one of the differences that I have with the estimable @Cyclefree. She appears to believe more regulation is the way forward, my experience is that regulation, and the creation of quasi autonomous bureaucracies like the LSB and many others in that diagram, often makes things worse. It emphasises form over substance and creates lots of additional cost with minimal reward. Our regulatory sector is, in my view, a serious and underrated impediment to growth in this country.
The big problem I think is a system of private and quasi-independent state monopolies that depends on regulation to function properly, where the regulators simply aren't to to the task. I am thinking eg OFWAT, OFCOM.
Simply abolishing them would have a limited effect but isn't a solution either.
Also functions such as building inspection, which appears to now be limited to checking mountains of paperwork, rather than, as a random example, that the building wall isn’t covered in flammable cladding.
So why do we do it this way?
I suspect the answer is something like- the public wants the regulations but doesn't want to pay for boots-on-the-ground regulators.
So we have placebo regulation by paperwork instead. Because who is going to win an election on a platform of spending more on Trading Standards and Building Control?
I’m at a loss as to why people think building control don’t visits sites - they do
When it comes to material it’s harder because you need to know the composition of the material and that is going to be we are installing these show label and go online to check the composition - because destructive tests are very expensive
The visits are cursory. Hence accounts of insulation missing on all the houses but the one inspected.
Or concrete pours that fail strength criteria. For lack of testing.
Building control is largely done by private contractors these days, not by council departments, I can't remember which government relaxed the rules. This leads to inevitable problems, as an inspector may become dependent on a single client for the majority of their income, and hence be less likely to find fault. This can happen even at very low levels: when we had our loft conversion done, the bc inspection was done by a guy who was nominally independent but 90% of his income came from a single company.
My other comment added some background / commentary. it was the Building Act 1984. I actually think this is an opportunity for Kemi, but she needs to find Future Conservative, not 50-years-ago Conservative.
Further to the debates on building control, I was dealing with them concerning this one yesterday - a window swinging out over the busy pavement of a route to the town centre. I criticise my Council's attention to detail, but when half of their budget in real terms has been removed in under 20 years, it is hardly a surprise. Here I can still talk to a Duty Planner, and directly to Building Control.
That is at head height for someone using a mobility aid, and a danger for any long cane vision impaired person. He pavement parking is endemic so they go more along walls. It can swing about 1/3 of the way across the pavement.
I'm surprised it got past anyone, unless it was left off the plans, since eg a garage in that position would be required to have a roller shutter door, not something that swings out. It's also a surprise that the person doing the conversion (from a shop unit to a bungalow) did not notice - any purchaser with half a brain cell to rub together will challenge them on on it. A solution would have been sash or tilt-and-turn windows, or fixed lower panes. The cause could be inattention to detail or lazy assumption.
When i spoke to building control, they looked at it and said if I send in my photo by email they will "have a word". I have done that, and we shall see.
For me there are two problems with building control. One is that it was part-privatised by Maggie in the 1984 Building Act, which allows private BCOs to be appointed, which removes independence and hides the reports etc (which should be published as per Planning docs). This was partly rolled back for tall buildings after Grenfell.
The other is a now 45-year ingrained theology that "private sector is good", "public sector is bad", and that the way to fix the public sector is to CUT CUT CUT, pay the staff poorly, employ few, then CUT some more, That is exact opposite of the values applied to the private sector by the same people, and is crazy on its face.
That to me is an indicator that the Tories need a philosophy of public service, which at the moment they do not imo have, and a more sustainable political position. I'd suggest it would be a beneficial contrast to the cavemen of Ref UK.
It largely depends if Burnham wins the next general election or not. If he doesn't then Farage or Badenoch would be next PM. If he does then it depends how long Labour remains ahead in the polls, if the right reunite and they fall behind in the polls it might be a more centrist New Labour figure like Streeting who replaces him rather than just more leftism with Ed Miliband or Rayner
Who will win the next election is a game of elimination. It is pretty universally agreed on the centre ground that no-one deserves to, but there will of course be a PM after the next election.
It's a subject for Sherlock's great dictum (true of course only if slightly amended, but the point is clear):
when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
As it can only be the leader of Lab/Con/Ref it is simple.
It can't be Reform because they can't win. It can't be Kemi because she isn't PM material and she can't win and there is no-one decent to replace her. So it's Labour, or Labour led, which means almost 100% certainly Burnham. DYOR.
It could be Reform if they got back up to 25 to 30%+ consistently. It could be the Tories if Kemi translates her 27% favourable rating to Conservative voteshare. It could also of course be Burnham if he got Labour to a bounce approaching 30% and held it
It could be Reform but it won't be. It could be Kemi, but it won't. Elimination leaves Labour, IMO. All betting, and all opinion about the future, rests on an assessment of how what is not the case now will become the case in due course. DYOR, especially as I am usually wrong.
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
He was - not so long ago - a Cameroonian tory when that looked like the thing to be. He would have smiled/nodded at "loons, fruitcakes, closet racists" to describe Reform when it was called Ukip. Now, for pure pursuit-of-power reasons, he's gone over to them and comes out with this sort of bollox pretty much 24/7. Slick with it too. He really is a slimeball. In some ways worse than his boss. To the extent we have a JD Vance, Jenrick is it.
Just as no-one who looks at him for more than a minute believes Farage is 'anti-establishment'. He went to a private ("public") school and IIRC his daughters went a to a private school.
Farage didn't go to Oxbridge though, so for the senior civil service he is not establishment. For that matter nor is Kemi or Polanski on that basis but Burnham and Davey are (as is Starmer, just about after going to Oxford for a Masters after a Leeds BA)
Found a bit of 1.01 on Burnham this morning on Betfair. A genuine well under sub 1.01 I think, but you always have to be a bit careful to check whether someone might get into the bulldozer you're picking up pennies in front of
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
He was - not so long ago - a Cameroonian tory when that looked like the thing to be. He would have smiled/nodded at "loons, fruitcakes, closet racists" to describe Reform when it was called Ukip. Now, for pure pursuit-of-power reasons, he's gone over to them and comes out with this sort of bollox pretty much 24/7. Slick with it too. He really is a slimeball. In some ways worse than his boss. To the extent we have a JD Vance, Jenrick is it.
Vance is a “public intellectual” though, with a decent book to his name. That’s not Jenrick. Matt Goodwin probably has the closest back story.
Trump has a large number of turncoat former moderate Republicans in his stable these days. We can probably pick a Jenrick from among them.
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
A sensible move but might not help Burnham with squeezing the Green vote, though would help him squeeze some ex Labour voters who have gone Reform
Also 100% expect any decision to go ahead to be Judicially Reviewed - I seem to recall that is what overturned the previous decision to go ahead.
As an aside - and not sure why I am wondering about this - but I noticed that Olly Robbins (he of the going to a meeting without reading the papers, without making notes - or getting someone to do some - or telling anyone about the meeting) is pursuing a Judicial Review in relation to his sacking. Is there any reason (that anyone knows) why he wouldn’t simply pursue an employment tribunal?
Making a case that his sacking was unreasonable or unlawful seems a harder than “unfair” at a tribunal. Am I missing something?
So Red Ed is the strong betting fav for CoE but my punt McFadden is holding up well in 2nd place. No £ for anybody else. I'm still hopeful.
Woman out, man in. Will Burnham do that given the ‘stale pale male’ optics? Foreign and Home Secretaries are both currently women as well but there has also been speculation they too will be replaced. If David M gets the Foreign Office, that's two women out and two men in (even two Milibands in).
I don't know who will be in the new Cabinet but I would caution that Burnham will most likely feel constrained by the need to accommodate different wings of the party, other big beasts, regions, sex and ethnicity.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells @BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
Snobbery, not racism (as in the US) is the political original sin in Britain, especially England.
We can identify the Bullshit to within a few miles on accent alone. So virtually all the UK voters know that this is utter nonsense, a pure pose.
Reform is a fake party anyway. Meanwhile Badenoch continues to alienate anyone left of "quite" right wing.
So, the Tory/Reform bloc is not going to win the next election, and it probably won't even be close.
I'm not sure there is a Tory/Reform 'bloc'. And if there is, despite 'Badenoch continues to alienate anyone of quite right wing" it has about 50% of the VI - so perhaps the alienation of the left isn't the problem.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
We cannot judge the investigation. Yet.
We can judge their initial communications which were poor. The police should simply have said that they did not yet know the motive behind the murder, would investigate and would update as and when appropriate.
Ruling anything out before they had investigated was foolish. Why the police keep making such silly mistakes is bizarre.
Not at all bizarre but woke political management bungled badly
I thought this was interesting. Since the FIFA world ranking system was introduced, the winner of the world cup has been the highest-ranked semi-finalist five times, the second highest twice, and the third highest once. The lowest-ranked semi-finalist has not yet won the world cup. England are the lowest-ranked semi-finalist in 2026 - so time to create some new history I guess.
And all the golden boot candidates are still there, except for Haaland.
8 goals: Mbappé & Messi (these two are also up for all-time top scorer, on 20 and 21 respectively) 7: Haaland 6: Jude Bellingham and Harry Kane 5: Dembélé 4: Oyarzabal
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
We cannot judge the investigation. Yet.
We can judge their initial communications which were poor. The police should simply have said that they did not yet know the motive behind the murder, would investigate and would update as and when appropriate.
Ruling anything out before they had investigated was foolish. Why the police keep making such silly mistakes is bizarre.
Not at all bizarre but woke political management bungled badly
Not so much woke as following process without belief or understanding of outcomes.
Chief Constable Ronald Savage OBE DipSHit has done all the course and got all the awards, but strangely…
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
We cannot judge the investigation. Yet.
We can judge their initial communications which were poor. The police should simply have said that they did not yet know the motive behind the murder, would investigate and would update as and when appropriate.
Ruling anything out before they had investigated was foolish. Why the police keep making such silly mistakes is bizarre.
Not at all bizarre but woke political management bungled badly
Not so much woke as following process without belief or understanding of outcomes.
Chief Constable Ronald Savage OBE DipSHit has done all the course and got all the awards, but strangely…
It is appropriate that this is set in the South West because the handling of the communications around this are truly like the police officers in the Pirates of Penzance. It hasn't all been bad, but ...
The initial indication AW had died was sensible and well handled. At the point to announce it was a suspected murder, that was the time they should have indicated time of death etc. They should not have indicated they had someone under arrest and given the indication that a court appearance would be following.
The assurances it wasn't political and terrorism related. Whoever decided to say that ought to be sacked, end of. It was self-evidently untrue unless they had a culprit / fall guy lined up to take the can. If there was someone to charge then the political / terrorism stuff could have been said, after the court appearance.
I seem to remember the first Chief Constable of Devon / Cornwall used the pension contributions of the first PCs to build himself a mansion and left the pension fund bankrupt. That was I think why Gilbert and Sullivan felt empowered to write the Pirates of Penzance. It might be that the current incumbent is going to play a blinder but from 250 miles it doesn't look good.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
So Red Ed is the strong betting fav for CoE but my punt McFadden is holding up well in 2nd place. No £ for anybody else. I'm still hopeful.
Woman out, man in. Will Burnham do that given the ‘stale pale male’ optics? Foreign and Home Secretaries are both currently women as well but there has also been speculation they too will be replaced. If David M gets the Foreign Office, that's two women out and two men in (even two Milibands in).
I don't know who will be in the new Cabinet but I would caution that Burnham will most likely feel constrained by the need to accommodate different wings of the party, other big beasts, regions, sex and ethnicity.
David M is unlikely imo. I managed to lay him at evens for FS and I'm very happy with that. Re the gender split, I think he has to have 2 of the big 3 as women and the obvious way to achieve that is by keeping Cooper and Mahmood in place.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
We cannot judge the investigation. Yet.
We can judge their initial communications which were poor. The police should simply have said that they did not yet know the motive behind the murder, would investigate and would update as and when appropriate.
Ruling anything out before they had investigated was foolish. Why the police keep making such silly mistakes is bizarre.
Not at all bizarre but woke political management bungled badly
I do wonder with it breaking on a hot Thursday and Friday in July whether there was no-one of any rank actually on duty. WTF was the Chief Constable doing, why wasn't he at the press conference ? Likewise the Police and Crime Commissioner, it is what they are elected for.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Local government should be able to do what the local electorate want them to do.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Out of interest what obligations on them would you reduce ?
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Out of interest what obligations on them would you reduce ?
SEND provision ?
Adult care ?
At some point they’ll both have to be capped under a similar regime to NICE.
Plus she's thick as mince, I mean what idiot cancels Net Zero in the middle of a heatwave?
I dunno, someone markedly more intelligent than the fucktards who brought it in, transferring jobs away from relatively clean UK factories and giving them to a place with 4,700 coal mines?
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
He who is banished to the PB Lubyanka never stopped wibbling about it. It’s good but not that good.
Good: well paced, good cast, willing to kill characters off.
Poor: suspension of disbelief often required, crappy effects (the IDF raid on Tehran being tracked by radar would have made Blake’s 7 blush).
The most interesting things were the deep nostalgia felt by Iran descended Jews and connectedly how much Iran figures in the Israeli consciousness. Suspect there’s a bit of envy going on, Iran/Persia was a great civilisation while Jews were grubbing about in the desert with messes of pottage and waiting for Yahweh to sign off the 3000 year freehold on the land.
It largely depends if Burnham wins the next general election or not. If he doesn't then Farage or Badenoch would be next PM. If he does then it depends how long Labour remains ahead in the polls, if the right reunite and they fall behind in the polls it might be a more centrist New Labour figure like Streeting who replaces him rather than just more leftism with Ed Miliband or Rayner
Who will win the next election is a game of elimination. It is pretty universally agreed on the centre ground that no-one deserves to, but there will of course be a PM after the next election.
It's a subject for Sherlock's great dictum (true of course only if slightly amended, but the point is clear):
when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
As it can only be the leader of Lab/Con/Ref it is simple.
It can't be Reform because they can't win. It can't be Kemi because she isn't PM material and she can't win and there is no-one decent to replace her. So it's Labour, or Labour led, which means almost 100% certainly Burnham. DYOR.
This is not informed commentary, it's hopecasting. You hate Kemi and Nige, so you already have your conclusion, then work backwards. That's fine as it goes - you have arranged the words nicely, but what credence do you expect anyone to give this?
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
I wonder how Burnhams view of ‘screw the Bond markets’ is going to last in power.
Was never this bad when Truss, supposedly, crashed the economy.
Looks similar to other nations borrowing costs.
Look towards to Middle East for the simplest explanation as to why they are all going up.
These are friendly, social democratic bond market records. Everyone is doing them - we are back in the bossom of our European neighbours. Not like those wicked, reckless, Tory bond market records.
I wonder how Burnhams view of ‘screw the Bond markets’ is going to last in power.
Was never this bad when Truss, supposedly, crashed the economy.
Looks similar to other nations borrowing costs.
Look towards to Middle East for the simplest explanation as to why they are all going up.
These are friendly, social democratic bond market records. Everyone is doing them - we are back in the bossom of our European neighbours. Not like those wicked, reckless, Tory bond market records.
Or Singapore, or Japan, or the US, or Canada, or Australia
Yep, the whole capatalist democractic world is moving as one, unlike when Truss had her fun.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They haven't failed badly. They've arrested and charged someone. In a fast moving situation, it took them a couple of days to work out what had happened. That is not failing.
Ed Miliband has principles and if you don’t like those he has other ones.
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Out of interest what obligations on them would you reduce ?
SEND provision ?
Adult care ?
Chatting to a Trustee at a large Academy chain the other day; they have been told by the DfE that apparently Burnham wants to devolve education funding to Mayors (presumably having been given the budget to do so). All very good for maintained schools but rather a step backwards for Academies who are funded directly by the DfE and potentially a real mess for trusts that cover multiple mayoralties.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Out of interest what obligations on them would you reduce ?
SEND provision ?
Adult care ?
Chatting to a Trustee at a large Academy chain the other day; they have been told by the DfE that apparently Burnham wants to devolve education funding to Mayors (presumably having been given the budget to do so). All very good for maintained schools but rather a step backwards for Academies who are funded directly by the DfE and potentially a real mess for trusts that cover multiple mayoralties.
Are they proposing the devolution if Academy responsibility too ?
I wonder how Burnhams view of ‘screw the Bond markets’ is going to last in power.
Was never this bad when Truss, supposedly, crashed the economy.
Looks similar to other nations borrowing costs.
Look towards to Middle East for the simplest explanation as to why they are all going up.
These are friendly, social democratic bond market records. Everyone is doing them - we are back in the bossom of our European neighbours. Not like those wicked, reckless, Tory bond market records.
It wasn’t even correct.
All main European economies are below 4%, were above 5%
NOTE FOR OUR CUSTOMERS: We are absolutely delighted at the gargantuan amount of orders we're taking for our charity model of Count Binface at the moment. We are a small family business and will work through the orders as quickly as possible - we are currently aiming at a dispatch time of 2-3 weeks for orders placed today. Only place your order today if you're happy with that lead time.
A sign of things to come for the U.K. relationship with Israel
From Yvette Cooper
Quite a strong condemnation of a nation the Labour govt used to support uncritically.
“At the Palestine Donor Group event today with the Palestinian Prime Minister and international partners.
The UK is providing £10m for the UN Horizon Fund to support Palestinian led recovery in Gaza, where the appalling humanitarian crisis continues.
Israeli Government restrictions preventing basic aid and shelter for Gaza are immoral and must be urgently lifted. We need renewed international support for the Gaza peace process to bring security and peace to the region.“
While ostensibly about Ukrainian adaption to the war, he end up making points that we've rehearsed here many times. ..At the moment, I think we regulate ourselves into unaffordability, in a number of ways. And if you want to look at the difference, compare the number of civil servants working in defence procurements in the UK compared to Finland, and then compare the output of those two different workforces in terms of how much equipment they buy, at what price, and its functionality. And you will see that the Finns get far better value for money from a lot fewer people, because they have been better at defining sufficiency and accepting certain risk tolerance..
...you massively improve the quality of decision-making when you take decisions at an earlier stage. Our system has become chronic at making decisions as late as possible, and overlooking the fact that by delaying the decision, they have left themselves only with bad options. I will give you an example.
Two years ago [2024], the Labour government came in and committed to triple the size of our commitment to the NATO Alliance. It was a really significant increase/uplift in our commitment. Noting that the armed forces were functionally shrinking at that stage. One year ago, another pledge was made to our allies, which is that we would spend 3.5% of GDP on defence. And yet, just days before we were going to have to go back to NATO and explain the detail of when investments would be made into what, so that we could explain what we could offer, within what timeframe to enable the plans to inform their investments, the government was still debating a 50% variance in how much budget headroom it was going to make available for the department. That's a huge divergence in the trade-off decisions that the department has to make. And so by not having an argument about spending that you knew you were going to have, you guarantee the department having to make the most knee-jerk, reactive, and therefore resource inefficient decisions imaginable. And that is a recipe for having no option but to fail. Whereas if you make the decisions early, then you can engage in a much more deliberate process of planning, you can make sure that the profile of investment is such that it matches the capacity of the institution to absorb it and so on. So, I think the key thing we need to do is move our decision-making left.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Out of interest what obligations on them would you reduce ?
SEND provision ?
Adult care ?
Chatting to a Trustee at a large Academy chain the other day; they have been told by the DfE that apparently Burnham wants to devolve education funding to Mayors (presumably having been given the budget to do so). All very good for maintained schools but rather a step backwards for Academies who are funded directly by the DfE and potentially a real mess for trusts that cover multiple mayoralties.
Are they proposing the devolution if Academy responsibility too ?
On balance that might be a good thing.
And here we have the proboem with devolution. In principle, hurray for local democratic control over stuff. In practice, this meams a stronger-than-I'm-comfortable-with chance of a nutter from the green party being in charge of my daughter's education. Others may feel just as strongly about other parties. On balance, I'll take my chances with academies and the DofE. At least if I don't like an academy's politics there is a theoretical alternative I can send my child elsewhere. If I don't like the mayor of GM's politics, I basically havr to move.
NOTE FOR OUR CUSTOMERS: We are absolutely delighted at the gargantuan amount of orders we're taking for our charity model of Count Binface at the moment. We are a small family business and will work through the orders as quickly as possible - we are currently aiming at a dispatch time of 2-3 weeks for orders placed today. Only place your order today if you're happy with that lead time.
Hmm. £7 including £3 donation to a NHS charity for a plastic model of Binface or £whatever for a gold bar from Farage including a £22K an hour to the man himself for whom £5 million from a Thai crypto billionaire is not enough?
Morning all. Weather improving this morning; sunnier and warmer.
Looking at the header, Burnham is even in post yet and it's suggested we discuss his successor.
Surely there's something else we could argue over. When is it going to rain again, for example. Wilson appointed Denis Howell as Mnister for Drought and the heavens opened. IIRC it rained for the proverbial forty days and forty nights!
You're right. We shouldn't be discussing Burnham's replacement until at least November.
Just want to go back to something @Richard_Tyndall said on a previous thread:
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Anne Widdicombe might not have been an elected politician, but she was still very much in politics. The idea that not being elected meant she was any less likely to be a target is absurd.
The police have bungled badly. They have reinforced the view that they are there to manage the optics of a case like this which is not ideal for the Left.
It's not the job of the police to manage the paranoid fantasies of the extremely online.
No, it's their job to investigate without fear or favour. They have failed badly.
They haven't failed badly. They've arrested and charged someone. In a fast moving situation, it took them a couple of days to work out what had happened. That is not failing.
Don't think anyone has been charged. Just arrested in relation to two, possibly three, offences: murder, instigating terrorism, preparing acts of terrorism. AFAIK.
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
For decades, central government has only liked ‘delegating’ power and responsibility to local government if they’re doing things the government wants, and ideally are being done by their own party colleagues. Genuine devolution recognises that different people, and different localities, have different views and priorities and should have the freedom to pursue their own path whether or not it suits the government of the day. So far everything Burnham has said suggests he understands this latter point, but all my experience of the Labour Party in power suggests that collectively they do not. How this will play out remains to be seen.
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
I thought there were fires around Manchester a few years ago?
While ostensibly about Ukrainian adaption to the war, he end up making points that we've rehearsed here many times. ..At the moment, I think we regulate ourselves into unaffordability, in a number of ways. And if you want to look at the difference, compare the number of civil servants working in defence procurements in the UK compared to Finland, and then compare the output of those two different workforces in terms of how much equipment they buy, at what price, and its functionality. And you will see that the Finns get far better value for money from a lot fewer people, because they have been better at defining sufficiency and accepting certain risk tolerance..
...you massively improve the quality of decision-making when you take decisions at an earlier stage. Our system has become chronic at making decisions as late as possible, and overlooking the fact that by delaying the decision, they have left themselves only with bad options. I will give you an example.
Two years ago [2024], the Labour government came in and committed to triple the size of our commitment to the NATO Alliance. It was a really significant increase/uplift in our commitment. Noting that the armed forces were functionally shrinking at that stage. One year ago, another pledge was made to our allies, which is that we would spend 3.5% of GDP on defence. And yet, just days before we were going to have to go back to NATO and explain the detail of when investments would be made into what, so that we could explain what we could offer, within what timeframe to enable the plans to inform their investments, the government was still debating a 50% variance in how much budget headroom it was going to make available for the department. That's a huge divergence in the trade-off decisions that the department has to make. And so by not having an argument about spending that you knew you were going to have, you guarantee the department having to make the most knee-jerk, reactive, and therefore resource inefficient decisions imaginable. And that is a recipe for having no option but to fail. Whereas if you make the decisions early, then you can engage in a much more deliberate process of planning, you can make sure that the profile of investment is such that it matches the capacity of the institution to absorb it and so on. So, I think the key thing we need to do is move our decision-making left.
Defining defence spending quality by the metric of equipping and training a military that can do the tasks assigned to it is wrong.
That leaves out vital requirements, such as supporting manufacturers. And making sure that project managers can announce success and leave before any problems.
While ostensibly about Ukrainian adaption to the war, he end up making points that we've rehearsed here many times. ..At the moment, I think we regulate ourselves into unaffordability, in a number of ways. And if you want to look at the difference, compare the number of civil servants working in defence procurements in the UK compared to Finland, and then compare the output of those two different workforces in terms of how much equipment they buy, at what price, and its functionality. And you will see that the Finns get far better value for money from a lot fewer people, because they have been better at defining sufficiency and accepting certain risk tolerance..
...you massively improve the quality of decision-making when you take decisions at an earlier stage. Our system has become chronic at making decisions as late as possible, and overlooking the fact that by delaying the decision, they have left themselves only with bad options. I will give you an example.
Two years ago [2024], the Labour government came in and committed to triple the size of our commitment to the NATO Alliance. It was a really significant increase/uplift in our commitment. Noting that the armed forces were functionally shrinking at that stage. One year ago, another pledge was made to our allies, which is that we would spend 3.5% of GDP on defence. And yet, just days before we were going to have to go back to NATO and explain the detail of when investments would be made into what, so that we could explain what we could offer, within what timeframe to enable the plans to inform their investments, the government was still debating a 50% variance in how much budget headroom it was going to make available for the department. That's a huge divergence in the trade-off decisions that the department has to make. And so by not having an argument about spending that you knew you were going to have, you guarantee the department having to make the most knee-jerk, reactive, and therefore resource inefficient decisions imaginable. And that is a recipe for having no option but to fail. Whereas if you make the decisions early, then you can engage in a much more deliberate process of planning, you can make sure that the profile of investment is such that it matches the capacity of the institution to absorb it and so on. So, I think the key thing we need to do is move our decision-making left.
Defining defence spending quality by the metric of equipping and training a military that can do the tasks assigned to it is wrong.
That leaves out vital requirements, such as supporting manufacturers. And making sure that project managers can announce success and leave before any problems.
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
Local governments also need to obliged to do less. Allow the electorate to decide what (if any) value add they want on to of this lower starting point.
Out of interest what obligations on them would you reduce ?
SEND provision ?
Adult care ?
At some point they’ll both have to be capped under a similar regime to NICE.
IMHO, local government should be able to raise council tax by any amount they like, but only by referendum. If the voters aren't willing for councils to have more money, then they shouldn't have it.
The flip side of this is that local government should have complete freedom to decide what services they provide to their area. The whole debate is poisoned by the fact that local government effectively has its cost base fixed by central government, and large chunks of its funding is also ring fenced for things which might well not be the council's priorities.
If councils could provide budget offers with a choce between "council tax at level x, services y and z are cut back" or "council tax at x+10%, services y, and z fully funded" then people would have a real choice about what they pay and what they get.
It feels like we're living in a poorly written soap. Neither the Anne-Widdecombe-gets-murdered storyline nor the Farage-calls-a-needless-byelection-and-loses-to-Binface storyline are remotely believable. Nor for that matter is wildfires in the notoriously-moist Greater Manchester. Put some effort in, writers!
I thought there were fires around Manchester a few years ago?
You're right, I was being slightly flippant. But - if you're here - it does add an air of unreality.
It largely depends if Burnham wins the next general election or not. If he doesn't then Farage or Badenoch would be next PM. If he does then it depends how long Labour remains ahead in the polls, if the right reunite and they fall behind in the polls it might be a more centrist New Labour figure like Streeting who replaces him rather than just more leftism with Ed Miliband or Rayner
Who will win the next election is a game of elimination. It is pretty universally agreed on the centre ground that no-one deserves to, but there will of course be a PM after the next election.
It's a subject for Sherlock's great dictum (true of course only if slightly amended, but the point is clear):
when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
As it can only be the leader of Lab/Con/Ref it is simple.
It can't be Reform because they can't win. It can't be Kemi because she isn't PM material and she can't win and there is no-one decent to replace her. So it's Labour, or Labour led, which means almost 100% certainly Burnham. DYOR.
This is not informed commentary, it's hopecasting. You hate Kemi and Nige, so you already have your conclusion, then work backwards. That's fine as it goes - you have arranged the words nicely, but what credence do you expect anyone to give this?
I recall that algarkirk had outed themselves as a Conservative. Seems there is no room in the Conservative party any more for anyone other than Reform Ultras.
A sign of things to come for the U.K. relationship with Israel
From Yvette Cooper
Quite a strong condemnation of a nation the Labour govt used to support uncritically.
“At the Palestine Donor Group event today with the Palestinian Prime Minister and international partners.
The UK is providing £10m for the UN Horizon Fund to support Palestinian led recovery in Gaza, where the appalling humanitarian crisis continues.
Israeli Government restrictions preventing basic aid and shelter for Gaza are immoral and must be urgently lifted. We need renewed international support for the Gaza peace process to bring security and peace to the region.“
Milliband is hugely in favour of massive devolution isn't he ?
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Will he be on board with this
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
Hopefully, it's insane that someone in Whitehall determines what democratically elected councils can and cannot do.
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
No, and I’m not against this change in principle. If it happens.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
For decades, central government has only liked ‘delegating’ power and responsibility to local government if they’re doing things the government wants, and ideally are being done by their own party colleagues. Genuine devolution recognises that different people, and different localities, have different views and priorities and should have the freedom to pursue their own path whether or not it suits the government of the day. So far everything Burnham has said suggests he understands this latter point, but all my experience of the Labour Party in power suggests that collectively they do not. How this will play out remains to be seen.
It’s about separating office and responsibility.
“I’m in charge. But no papers have crossed my desk”.
The advantage of endless layers of organisations is that nearly everyone in the pile is not responsible for outcomes.
So we end up with the Post Office - where people running an organisation on high six figures and the rest, can claim they had no idea what was happening. And it’s jolly unfair that they aren’t being praised.
It largely depends if Burnham wins the next general election or not. If he doesn't then Farage or Badenoch would be next PM. If he does then it depends how long Labour remains ahead in the polls, if the right reunite and they fall behind in the polls it might be a more centrist New Labour figure like Streeting who replaces him rather than just more leftism with Ed Miliband or Rayner
Who will win the next election is a game of elimination. It is pretty universally agreed on the centre ground that no-one deserves to, but there will of course be a PM after the next election.
It's a subject for Sherlock's great dictum (true of course only if slightly amended, but the point is clear):
when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
As it can only be the leader of Lab/Con/Ref it is simple.
It can't be Reform because they can't win. It can't be Kemi because she isn't PM material and she can't win and there is no-one decent to replace her. So it's Labour, or Labour led, which means almost 100% certainly Burnham. DYOR.
It could be Reform if they got back up to 25 to 30%+ consistently. It could be the Tories if Kemi translates her 27% favourable rating to Conservative voteshare. It could also of course be Burnham if he got Labour to a bounce approaching 30% and held it
It could be Reform but it won't be. It could be Kemi, but it won't. Elimination leaves Labour, IMO. All betting, and all opinion about the future, rests on an assessment of how what is not the case now will become the case in due course. DYOR, especially as I am usually wrong.
Thing is, though, elections are lost by governments not won by oppositions.
So if Burnham arrests Labour's decline under Starmer, he wins.
If he fails as badly - or worse - then the electorate will look for an alternative. For the last two years Farage has appeared to be next in line but that could easily change.
Now, you might argue that neither Farage nor Badenoch has anything going for them. Neither did Starmer.
NOTE FOR OUR CUSTOMERS: We are absolutely delighted at the gargantuan amount of orders we're taking for our charity model of Count Binface at the moment. We are a small family business and will work through the orders as quickly as possible - we are currently aiming at a dispatch time of 2-3 weeks for orders placed today. Only place your order today if you're happy with that lead time.
Hmm. £7 including £3 donation to a NHS charity for a plastic model of Binface or £whatever for a gold bar from Farage including a £22K an hour to the man himself for whom £5 million from a Thai crypto billionaire is not enough?
Comments
Miliband willing to approve North Sea oil to land job as chancellor
Energy Secretary wants to prove he is a ‘pragmatist’ rather than a ‘zealot’ on environmental policy to help his case for being chancellor
Ed Miliband wants to approve drilling in the North Sea to calm market jitters about his possible appointment as chancellor and prove he is no net zero “zealot”.
The Energy Secretary has privately signalled his willingness to grant consent for drilling at the Jackdaw gas field but cannot publicly confirm the move until a consultation closes next month.
Jackdaw, off the coast of Aberdeen, is one of two licences in the North Sea currently held in legal limbo. The other site, Rosebank, would produce oil to be sold in a global market, but Jackdaw would be able to provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million British homes this winter.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/14/miliband-will-approve-north-sea-oil-clear-path-chancellor/
There’s something of a tradition in the US of allowing a close family member, most often a widow, to temporarily take the place of someone who dies in office pending a by-election.
There will now be a special Republican primary, to choose a candidate for the ballot in November where Graham was due to stand for another term of office.
A leopard doesn’t change his spots, just because it might appear politically convenient and there’s a job going for a lion.
Establishment figures telling us they are insurgents.
Kevin Schofield
@KevinASchofield
Reform MP Robert Jenrick, a former Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Housing Secretary, health minister and immigration minister, tells
@BBCr4today: "We are not mainstream politicians, we are politicians who are fighting the establishment every single day."
https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/2076931024177553487
As I said earlier, the possibility of it being a random killing is probably the thing that the police needed to comment on because it's the most concerning one for the public.
But deep down, I don't think anyone was scared because as humans we are good at asking "how likely is it?"
EDIT: I was saying that the most likely outcome was it was a family member who did it. Once the police think it's someone else, well, we all know the most likely outcome.
He doesn't seem prepared to extend the principle to the country's interests.
Remember that under far right government the police have a somewhat “different” role in society. They need to get with the programme.
Or concrete pours that fail strength criteria. For lack of testing.
It amounts to "He was driving away, so we shot him."
They may have been coloured by Trump and his munchkins' consistent lies about 'they are killers and rapists".
US police do not afaics place much weight on public safety, even those police services which are not Trump's militia.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jul/14/most-coverage-june-heatwave-did-not-mention-climate-crisis
We can identify the Bullshit to within a few miles on accent alone. So virtually all the UK voters know that this is utter nonsense, a pure pose.
Reform is a fake party anyway. Meanwhile Badenoch continues to alienate anyone left of "quite" right wing.
So, the Tory/Reform bloc is not going to win the next election, and it probably won't even be close.
But Farage's I am just a poor boy routine is obviously nonsense. And Bobby J's tribute act is even more nonsensical because at least Farage can say he has taken the non-mainstream political concensus position throughout his political career.
Further to the debates on building control, I was dealing with them concerning this one yesterday - a window swinging out over the busy pavement of a route to the town centre. I criticise my Council's attention to detail, but when half of their budget in real terms has been removed in under 20 years, it is hardly a surprise. Here I can still talk to a Duty Planner, and directly to Building Control.
That is at head height for someone using a mobility aid, and a danger for any long cane vision impaired person. He pavement parking is endemic so they go more along walls. It can swing about 1/3 of the way across the pavement.
I'm surprised it got past anyone, unless it was left off the plans, since eg a garage in that position would be required to have a roller shutter door, not something that swings out. It's also a surprise that the person doing the conversion (from a shop unit to a bungalow) did not notice - any purchaser with half a brain cell to rub together will challenge them on on it. A solution would have been sash or tilt-and-turn windows, or fixed lower panes. The cause could be inattention to detail or lazy assumption.
When i spoke to building control, they looked at it and said if I send in my photo by email they will "have a word". I have done that, and we shall see.
For me there are two problems with building control. One is that it was part-privatised by Maggie in the 1984 Building Act, which allows private BCOs to be appointed, which removes independence and hides the reports etc (which should be published as per Planning docs). This was partly rolled back for tall buildings after Grenfell.
The other is a now 45-year ingrained theology that "private sector is good", "public sector is bad", and that the way to fix the public sector is to CUT CUT CUT, pay the staff poorly, employ few, then CUT some more, That is exact opposite of the values applied to the private sector by the same people, and is crazy on its face.
That to me is an indicator that the Tories need a philosophy of public service, which at the moment they do not imo have, and a more sustainable political position. I'd suggest it would be a beneficial contrast to the cavemen of Ref UK.
Trump has a large number of turncoat former moderate Republicans in his stable these days. We can probably pick a Jenrick from among them.
As an aside - and not sure why I am wondering about this - but I noticed that Olly Robbins (he of the going to a meeting without reading the papers, without making notes - or getting someone to do some - or telling anyone about the meeting) is pursuing a Judicial Review in relation to his sacking. Is there any reason (that anyone knows) why he wouldn’t simply pursue an employment tribunal?
Making a case that his sacking was unreasonable or unlawful seems a harder than “unfair” at a tribunal. Am I missing something?
I don't know who will be in the new Cabinet but I would caution that Burnham will most likely feel constrained by the need to accommodate different wings of the party, other big beasts, regions, sex and ethnicity.
Given the treasury are likely to be one of the blockers to Burnham's main strategic policy, putting someone into that role who will also be seeking to devolve powers from Whitehall would make sense through that lens.
Was never this bad when Truss, supposedly, crashed the economy.
Cross Party group of MP’s tells Burnham to let councils raise tax by how much they want.
https://x.com/skynews/status/2076977712674004995?s=61
8 goals: Mbappé & Messi (these two are also up for all-time top scorer, on 20 and 21 respectively)
7: Haaland
6: Jude Bellingham and Harry Kane
5: Dembélé
4: Oyarzabal
Chief Constable Ronald Savage OBE DipSHit has done all the course and got all the awards, but strangely…
Fiscal devolution, even without the ability to raise corporation and income tax will very greatly change how all this occurs.
Out of interest, can you think of any other democratic nation that has such a controlling centre that blocks the ability for regions to invest to grow their economies as like in this country ?
Look towards to Middle East for the simplest explanation as to why they are all going up.
The trend may be similar but compared to our peers ours is higher
https://tradingeconomics.com/bonds
Major10Y Yield Chg Weekly Monthly YTD YoY Date
Turkey 33.9750 2.6550 3.07% 3.05% 6.82% 4.11% Jul/13
Russia 16.3500 0.1800 -0.36% 1.22% 1.91% 1.71% Jul/13
Brazil 14.4200 0.0150 0.01% 0.24% 0.65% 0.64% Jul/13
Mexico. 9.0600 0.0220 0.02% 0.10% 0.11% -0.38% Jul/13
South Africa 8.5600 0.0800 0.20% 0.23% 0.35% -1.30% Jul/14
India 6.7880 0.0570 0.09% -0.08% 0.22% 0.48% Jul/14
United Kingdom 5.0140 0.0223 0.18% 0.20% 0.55% 0.40% 12:04
Australia 4.9070 0.018 0.08% 0.10% 0.15% 0.53% 12:03
New Zealand 4.6790 0.0495 0.24% 0.25% 0.27% 0.09% Jul/14
United States 4.6260 0.006 0.07% 0.15% 0.45% 0.14% 12:03
South Korea 4.3210 0.0570 0.11% 0.13% 0.94% 1.45% Jul/14
Italy 3.9240 0.0408 0.14% 0.25% 0.42% 0.32% 12:04
France. 3.9100 0.0348 0.24% 0.32% 0.35% 0.50% 12:03
Greece. 3.8030 0.0642 0.15% 0.18% 0.33% 0.41% 12:03
Spain 3.5910 0.004 0.12% 0.21% 0.30% 0.27% 12:04
Canada. 3.5790 0.014 0.09% 0.17% 0.15% -0.03% 12:04
Portugal. 3.4910 0.0342 0.12% 0.16% 0.34% 0.34% 12:03
Netherlands 3.2120 0.0151 0.09% 0.14% 0.25% 0.33% 12:04
Germany 3.0964 0.0233 0.11% 0.15% 0.24% 0.38% 12:04
Japan 2.7030 0.0840 -0.14% 0.13% 0.63% 1.11% Jul/14
China 1.7350 0.0030 0.00% -0.01% -0.13% 0.06% Jul/14
Switzerland 0.4300 0.0231 0.08% 0.07% 0.15% -0.04% 12:03
The initial indication AW had died was sensible and well handled. At the point to announce it was a suspected murder, that was the time they should have indicated time of death etc. They should not have indicated they had someone under arrest and given the indication that a court appearance would be following.
The assurances it wasn't political and terrorism related. Whoever decided to say that ought to be sacked, end of. It was self-evidently untrue unless they had a culprit / fall guy lined up to take the can. If there was someone to charge then the political / terrorism stuff could have been said, after the court appearance.
I seem to remember the first Chief Constable of Devon / Cornwall used the pension contributions of the first PCs to build himself a mansion and left the pension fund bankrupt. That was I think why Gilbert and Sullivan felt empowered to write the Pirates of Penzance. It might be that the current incumbent is going to play a blinder but from 250 miles it doesn't look good.
Local govt funding is broken in this country. We cannot stumble on as we are. Change from Labour to Reform to Lib Dem to Tory to Independents and little really changes
That is democracy.
SEND provision ?
Adult care ?
However this from Everton FC aimed at Troy Deeney is next level
https://x.com/nowfootball/status/2076742425096097861?s=61
England have gone from 61/0 to 80/5.
It’s good but not that good.
Good: well paced, good cast, willing to kill characters off.
Poor: suspension of disbelief often required, crappy effects (the IDF raid on Tehran being tracked by radar would have made Blake’s 7 blush).
The most interesting things were the deep nostalgia felt by Iran descended Jews and connectedly how much Iran figures in the Israeli consciousness. Suspect there’s a bit of envy going on, Iran/Persia was a great civilisation while Jews were grubbing about in the desert with messes of pottage and waiting for Yahweh to sign off the 3000 year freehold on the land.
Yep, the whole capatalist democractic world is moving as one, unlike when Truss had her fun.
If he possessed an ounce of genuine pragmatism, he'd already have done so.
On balance that might be a good thing.
All main European economies are below 4%, were above 5%
Even the USA is around 4.6%
Still our 10 year is cheaper than Turkey !
From Yvette Cooper
Quite a strong condemnation of a nation the Labour govt used to support uncritically.
“At the Palestine Donor Group event today with the Palestinian Prime Minister and international partners.
The UK is providing £10m for the UN Horizon Fund to support Palestinian led recovery in Gaza, where the appalling humanitarian crisis continues.
Israeli Government restrictions preventing basic aid and shelter for Gaza are immoral and must be urgently lifted. We need renewed international support for the Gaza peace process to bring security and peace to the region.“
https://x.com/yvettecoopermp/status/2076784482657464651?s=61
Watling is generally good value.
https://www.rusi.org/podcasts/talking-strategy/episode-21-dr-jack-watling-ukrainian-adaptation-war
While ostensibly about Ukrainian adaption to the war, he end up making points that we've rehearsed here many times.
..At the moment, I think we regulate ourselves into unaffordability, in a number of ways. And if you want to look at the difference, compare the number of civil servants working in defence procurements in the UK compared to Finland, and then compare the output of those two different workforces in terms of how much equipment they buy, at what price, and its functionality. And you will see that the Finns get far better value for money from a lot fewer people, because they have been better at defining sufficiency and accepting certain risk tolerance..
...you massively improve the quality of decision-making when you take decisions at an earlier stage. Our system has become chronic at making decisions as late as possible, and overlooking the fact that by delaying the decision, they have left themselves only with bad options. I will give you an example.
Two years ago [2024], the Labour government came in and committed to triple the size of our commitment to the NATO Alliance. It was a really significant increase/uplift in our commitment. Noting that the armed forces were functionally shrinking at that stage. One year ago, another pledge was made to our allies, which is that we would spend 3.5% of GDP on defence. And yet, just days before we were going to have to go back to NATO and explain the detail of when investments would be made into what, so that we could explain what we could offer, within what timeframe to enable the plans to inform their investments, the government was still debating a 50% variance in how much budget headroom it was going to make available for the department. That's a huge divergence in the trade-off decisions that the department has to make. And so by not having an argument about spending that you knew you were going to have, you guarantee the department having to make the most knee-jerk, reactive, and therefore resource inefficient decisions imaginable. And that is a recipe for having no option but to fail. Whereas if you make the decisions early, then you can engage in a much more deliberate process of planning, you can make sure that the profile of investment is such that it matches the capacity of the institution to absorb it and so on. So, I think the key thing we need to do is move our decision-making left.
At least if I don't like an academy's politics there is a theoretical alternative I can send my child elsewhere. If I don't like the mayor of GM's politics, I basically havr to move.
Choices. Choices.
“ 🚨BREAKING: With @Imran_HussainMP and 80 other MPs and Lords, I have written to the Foreign Secretary calling for comprehensive sanctions on Israel.
The world’s top court is clear. Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal - and Governments must act now to end it!”
https://x.com/richardburgon/status/2076986963542822976?s=61
That leaves out vital requirements, such as supporting manufacturers. And making sure that project managers can announce success and leave before any problems.
That leaves out vital requirements, such as supporting manufacturers. And making sure that project managers can announce success and leave before any problems.
The flip side of this is that local government should have complete freedom to decide what services they provide to their area. The whole debate is poisoned by the fact that local government effectively has its cost base fixed by central government, and large chunks of its funding is also ring fenced for things which might well not be the council's priorities.
If councils could provide budget offers with a choce between "council tax at level x, services y and z are cut back" or "council tax at x+10%, services y, and z fully funded" then people would have a real choice about what they pay and what they get.
“I’m in charge. But no papers have crossed my desk”.
The advantage of endless layers of organisations is that nearly everyone in the pile is not responsible for outcomes.
So we end up with the Post Office - where people running an organisation on high six figures and the rest, can claim they had no idea what was happening. And it’s jolly unfair that they aren’t being praised.
So if Burnham arrests Labour's decline under Starmer, he wins.
If he fails as badly - or worse - then the electorate will look for an alternative. For the last two years Farage has appeared to be next in line but that could easily change.
Now, you might argue that neither Farage nor Badenoch has anything going for them. Neither did Starmer.