My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
I give Starmer a lot of credit for going through shit to just about hold the line with Trump on Ukraine.
The UK's relationship with its most important partner country is still unresolved however.
My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Happy new Prime Minister Day to all who celebrate. How soon/long until we gather to celebrate again?
On topic: Starmer really wasn't a great Leader of the Opposition. He just happened to be leader of the opposition at the time that Liz Truss became Prime Minister, and doomed the Tories to the worst election result in their history.
Sometimes life is about being in the right place at the right time, and Starmer certainly managed that. And then, if you judge the success of an election-winning Prime Minister by the length of their tenure, divided by the majority they won at the election, Starmer likely has one of the lowest days per MP ratios in history. He was not up to the job.
Starmer played his part in slowly deconstructing Boris, and ousting a Prime Minister is part of the job. Kemi will claim Starmer but I'm not wholly convinced she made any difference there.
Her humble address resulted in the release of all the damning information on Mandelson's appointment so in that she did play a key role
And there was non-trivial pushback that by getting all the documents revealed in Parliament, this was damaging National Security/Legal Process/Embarrassing Important People
OK we can let Kemi have that one (although the really damaging stuff came from the Epstein files via Bloomberg).
My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
Two points: 27th June, the date of that prediction, is years ago in modern political time; secondly, the far right in the last few months has seen a number of issues, all well canvassed here and elsewhere, come home to roost and the trend is inexorable. While the actual political world is moving on, Reform is stuck in a comedy of errors byelection, Restore thinks it can win an election by allowing Lowe's father and other Oxford graduates to reload their handguns.
Farage is revealed as a chancer who can dish it out but not take it. Goodwin looks like an Argentinian footballer after 120 minutes, Kruger is being thoughtful and quiet. It's over.
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Everything is a legitimate target in a conflict as long as you describe it as such.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
Your last sentence is a bit premature
All statements about the future are premature. Unverifiable statements about the future based on intuition/guesswork are the lifeblood of PB. This trait among humans sustains a substantial thing called the betting industry. That I am always wrong (my January PB competition pick that Argentina would win the world cup had a good run but is merely my most recent fail) makes no difference.
More importantly, will they do it all over again ?
Bartiromo: I don't understand how Iran has the capabilities to fight this way because the U.S. has obliterated Iran's military, and the president continues to reiterate that.. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2078854061890408825
LNG shipments into Europe are as low as they've been for year, btw. Partly thanks to Asian buying from the US.
Happy new Prime Minister Day to all who celebrate. How soon/long until we gather to celebrate again?
On topic: Starmer really wasn't a great Leader of the Opposition. He just happened to be leader of the opposition at the time that Liz Truss became Prime Minister, and doomed the Tories to the worst election result in their history.
Sometimes life is about being in the right place at the right time, and Starmer certainly managed that. And then, if you judge the success of an election-winning Prime Minister by the length of their tenure, divided by the majority they won at the election, Starmer likely has one of the lowest days per MP ratios in history. He was not up to the job.
Starmer played his part in slowly deconstructing Boris, and ousting a Prime Minister is part of the job. Kemi will claim Starmer but I'm not wholly convinced she made any difference there.
Her humble address resulted in the release of all the damning information on Mandelson's appointment so in that she did play a key role
How long do you think it will take her to get rid of Burnham? Maybe the weekend.
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Everything is a legitimate target in a conflict as long as you describe it as such.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
I am no expert on the terms for engagement held within the Geneva Convention but I don't believe the targeting of Kiev tower blocks, Gazan hospitals or Tehran schools fall within the rules.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Everything is a legitimate target in a conflict as long as you describe it as such.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
I am no expert on the terms for engagement held within the Geneva Convention but I don't believe the targeting of Kiev tower blocks, Gazan hospitals or Tehran schools fall within the rules.
I wouldn’t have thought so either but others seem to think differently
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Everything is a legitimate target in a conflict as long as you describe it as such.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
I am no expert on the terms for engagement held within the Geneva Convention but I don't believe the targeting of Kiev tower blocks, Gazan hospitals or Tehran schools fall within the rules.
I wouldn’t have thought so either but others seem to think differently
Civilian structures become a legitimate target if you use them for military purposes. So Wildberries becomes a target if you use it for shipping drones, an apartment building becomes a military target if you put air defence on the roof, etc
Starmer comes out of No 10 to deliver his final words before heading to Buckingham Palace to officially resign as PM
Hopefully the BBC has hired a helicopter to fly about above the scene, as I wouldn't want to miss seeing the top of Starmer's and Burnham's cars; vital views that we will need to keep fully up with events?
As Burnham prepares to enter No 10, Yougov today finds 27% of voters expect him to govern mainly for the North, 23% for the whole country and just 4% mainly for London and the South East
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Everything is a legitimate target in a conflict as long as you describe it as such.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
I am no expert on the terms for engagement held within the Geneva Convention but I don't believe the targeting of Kiev tower blocks, Gazan hospitals or Tehran schools fall within the rules.
I wouldn’t have thought so either but others seem to think differently
Civilian structures become a legitimate target if you use them for military purposes. So Wildberries becomes a target if you use it for shipping drones, an apartment building becomes a military target if you put air defence on the roof, etc
And even if they don’t just say they do and jobs a good un.
A great piece on Islmophobia in the Spectator, charting the decline of a once-respected institution.
Based on a report from the CfMM
The Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) is an initiative established in 2018 by the Muslim Council of Britain.
🤔
A pretty piss poor piece of journalism. Cherry-picking phrases without context. No way of referencing the original article. And since when did a left-liberal newspaper become so keen on organised religion?
Islam is a relegion, an ideology. Islamophobia is fine. Discrimination against Muslims is wrong.
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
In WWI the British developed chemical weapons but didn't use a new chemical until the Germans used it first. It's thought that this experience possibly acted as a deterrence against German use of chemical weapons in WWII.
In the Russo-Ukraine war Russia has targeted civilians directly and purposefully, most obviously in the human safari in Kherson city. They have also targeted civilian infrastructure indiscriminately, including Nova Poshta - the Ukrainian postal service - and supermarket distribution warehouses.
It's possible that one purpose of the recent attacks by Ukraine on power stations and wildberries warehouses is to act as a deterrent against Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. To show the Russians that they are also vulnerable, and that a tacit understanding not to target civilian infrastructure would benefit both sides.
I fear this will not be successful, because the Russian leadership gives little more thought to its own people than to Ukrainians. But I can see the logic and I think it is worth a try.
Ukraine's lack of means to intercept ballistic missiles presages a very difficult winter, unless they can either deter such attacks, or prevent them by destroying the missile factories. Unfortunately, a recent attempt to attack one such factory with Flamingo missiles was defeated when Russian air defences were augmented by an A-50 AWACS and other aircraft.
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Everything is a legitimate target in a conflict as long as you describe it as such.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
I am no expert on the terms for engagement held within the Geneva Convention but I don't believe the targeting of Kiev tower blocks, Gazan hospitals or Tehran schools fall within the rules.
I wouldn’t have thought so either but others seem to think differently
Civilian structures become a legitimate target if you use them for military purposes. So Wildberries becomes a target if you use it for shipping drones, an apartment building becomes a military target if you put air defence on the roof, etc
I seem to recall that one of the key features in the Fall of Singapore was that Japanese had an artillery battery on the top of the Sultan of Johore's palace firing at the British and Australians. The Australians wanted to take it out, which would have been quite easy; the British commander refused to allow them to do so because it was a Sultan's palace, and destroying the artillery battery would have severely damaged (at best) it.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
Since the principal power of the government is in controlling the money, I think it would be Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, who would be considered most in control, in the absence of a PM.
Otherwise it's the King who is formally in charge all the time, at the head of his Privy Council, except insofar as he chooses to delegate his power to others.
My history's a little hazy, John , but did Corbyn become PM?
Starmer became PM because: (a) he and his team (i.e. McSweeney) were highly effective up to 2019 in the way they positioned Starmer to be able to persuade Labour members to ditch the Corbynites and elect Starmer as leader. (b) Johnson, Truss and Sunak turned out to be crap, no thanks to Starmer, and after 14 years the country was crying out for change. So he got lucky.
No reason for such a figure to turn out to be a good PM.
True. But how would those Starmer was up against in 2020 have got on, namely Long-Bailey, Nandy, Phillips, and Thornberry?
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
Farage's star is waning but the factors that have led to the far right (not even sure that's a fair term for people who just want to stop immigration) are still there.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
Technically the whole government resigns with Starmer so all the positions are vacant but since they have the Seals of Office I think David Lammy is in charge for a bit.
I know Starmer has to put a positive gloss on things, but I find myself very antagonistic towards his denial of reality in his self-congratulation while being humiliated as he is forced out of his job so soon after starting it.
All politicians gild the lily, but Starmer is so very bad at it.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
Technically the whole government resigns with Starmer so all the positions are vacant but since they have the Seals of Office I think David Lammy is in charge for a bit.
What's the betting Putin has some minor annoying trouble lined up with one of his ships in the Channel or North Sea in next hour?
The market reaction has been more muted with the resumption of hostilities and renewed blockage of Hormuz than it was the first time around, which seems odd. I know that oil consumption fell by more than expected after the initial outbreak, but that's only going to postpone the reckoning if something isn't resolved there soon. And Turmp doesnt seem to know how.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
That's the thing - I can't see why you would push for nationalisation, you just leave it for Thames Water to fall apart and be ready to step in the second you need to.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
I agree it’s part of it and not so much cuts but more slowing the rate of growth and helping people back to work.
But they both need to look at what they do to the triple lock as well and how that is reformed
Burnham wants a cross party consensus on care costs. He’s right.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending. What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending.
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending. What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Secretary.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
I think it helps the narrative of bringing the war home to everyday Russians. Whether that helps end the war is a different thing. Many Germans in 1943-45 wanted to end the war but Hitler was notoriously stubborn and equipped with a set of nasty thugs who were quite happy to string people up using piano wire. Putin has chaps who suggest taking a view out of the window. Literally out of the window. I'm not sure how the everyday Russian ends the war.
First time we haven't been able to see the outgoing PM leaving the Palace IIRC.
Not so:
"Starmer leaves Buckingham Palace published at 12:03 12:03 BREAKING Keir Starmer has left Buckingham Palace after stepping down as PM. As is tradition, he exited privately along with his wife Lady Victoria."
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending. What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending.
Tax cuts not welfare spending is Kemi's cry
How does she afford defence spending if she has spent welfare savings on tax cuts to the wealthy?
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending. What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending. What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending.
Tax cuts not welfare spending is Kemi's cry
How does she afford defence spending if she has spent welfare savings on tax cuts to the wealthy?
A great piece on Islmophobia in the Spectator, charting the decline of a once-respected institution.
Based on a report from the CfMM
The Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) is an initiative established in 2018 by the Muslim Council of Britain.
🤔
A pretty piss poor piece of journalism. Cherry-picking phrases without context. No way of referencing the original article. And since when did a left-liberal newspaper become so keen on organised religion?
Islam is a relegion, an ideology. Islamophobia is fine. Discrimination against Muslims is wrong.
I agree with you on the poor journalism while accepting, on a disinterested aquaintance with the Spectator, that her central accusation is fundamentally correct.
More importantly I *strongly* disagree with your distinction that Islamophobia is fine but discrimination against Muslims is wrong. Any more than antisemitism is fine but discrimination against Jews is wrong for example
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
That's basically Badenoch's pitch at the next election. Cuts to benefits to fund tax cuts.
What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending. What do we want? Tax cuts not defence spending.
Tax cuts not welfare spending is Kemi's cry
How does she afford defence spending if she has spent welfare savings on tax cuts to the wealthy?
Efficiency savings in the MoD. You know the drill.
Interesting fact: although the office of PM is now vacant, all the other government office holders are still in place until Burnham changes them. Which means that, in practice, Yvette Cooper is probably running the country for a short time, if you assume that Foreign Secretary is the most senior position in government other than prime minister.
It's Lammy ( just heard it on LBC) who might be out of a job by teatime.
Might as well declare war on France then for a laugh.
This is why Dave didn’t appoint me to his staff when he became Foreign Office.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
Just foreign policy issues - domestic issue requiring a minor distraction, nuke France.
After the last few days maybe we rethink and look at Argentina?
I am.more comfortable with the former than the latter.
One knows working in petrochemicals at a time of war is dangerous. I am not sure an equivalent of Amazon was on the civilian danger list.
Dual use - petrochemicals are targeted in war because they are a vital part of military usage. In addition to civilian usage.
See the electricity grid, bridges and many other things.
I have absolutely no problem with the lights going out in Moscow or rationing fuel for the family Moskvitch. Knocking out Amazon seems to me to be mission creep.
The mission is to win the war and defeat Russia which launched the invasion.
Attacking Russian logistics is absolutely legitimate as part of that mission. If Russia does not want the logistics hit, they can pull back to their internationally recognised borders.
This is the same absolutism you advocated in Gaza. Your ultimate analysis is always "f*** the Geneva Convention".
I am sure there are good reasons to bomb civilian targets. I am sure sometimes bombing civilian targets is a bad idea.
Except, these are not "civilian targets". They are part of the Russian military's logistics netwrk, for military material.
So fuck them.
Get on your high horse and look at the moral highground from up there. You'll get a great view of the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Russian war crimes. I'm sure even you will be able to see missiles slamming into Ukrainian hopsitals, tower blocks, kindergartens, markets....
I know I am a traitor because I don't like tatty flags of St George on lampposts but where have I justified Russian war crimes?
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Everything is a legitimate target in a conflict as long as you describe it as such.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
I am no expert on the terms for engagement held within the Geneva Convention but I don't believe the targeting of Kiev tower blocks, Gazan hospitals or Tehran schools fall within the rules.
I wouldn’t have thought so either but others seem to think differently
Civilian structures become a legitimate target if you use them for military purposes. So Wildberries becomes a target if you use it for shipping drones, an apartment building becomes a military target if you put air defence on the roof, etc
I seem to recall that one of the key features in the Fall of Singapore was that Japanese had an artillery battery on the top of the Sultan of Johore's palace firing at the British and Australians. The Australians wanted to take it out, which would have been quite easy; the British commander refused to allow them to do so because it was a Sultan's palace, and destroying the artillery battery would have severely damaged (at best) it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Sultan and the Commander were at the same school or members of the same clubs.
In totally unsurprising news, Kemi's published letter to Burnham is demanding, rather discourteously as usual, that a Labour Prime Minister should carry out Conservative policies. Burnham will file it in the bin.
By sun down we will have a cabinet of horrors, the useless, the felons, and downright stupid.
It’s off to an awful start with all this Nationalisation Of Water Companies nonsense.
The Water Companies in question have bankrupted themselves. Keeping on proving them up as zombies is a stupid farce.
Too Big To Fail is always a disaster. We need more bankruptcies in this country, not less.
WTF? And what happens then? Company supplies fresh water. No company supplying fresh water, no fresh water?
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Sigh.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Don’t nationalise it, wait for it to go bust and supervise the sale with the administrators.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
If the government doesn’t keep stepping in, they are toast.
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
It's will be interesting to see how it pans out, though.
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers. One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.
In totally unsurprising news, Kemi's published letter to Burnham is demanding, rather discourteously as usual, that a Labour Prime Minister should carry out Conservative policies. Burnham will file it in the bin.
Except Andy Burnham has been speaking for some time about working with other parties.
Comments
Starmer seems to have majored on being the best available in the circumstances in becoming leader, and then being the only serious option for forming a government in 2024.
Perhaps he will be remembered for this: He kept us out of wars, he nuanced our approach to the impossible Israel/Palestine question, he wasn't a disaster with Trump, he led the only party capable of forming a government, he was PM for two years in which the world and UK had little or no luck, he paved the way by being a cheerless Eeyore for whom our glass was half empty for a cheerful popular person for whom the the half full glass is going to get fuller and might make his own luck.
And as Starmer hands over, the threat from the far right is receding fast and will soon be out of sight as a serious option for government.
No, it isn't.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
The BBC could do with a lot more like him.
The UK's relationship with its most important partner country is still unresolved however.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkA0bkb6ZO0
If so, how did they do it and why do it in secret?
Based on a report from the CfMM
The Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) is an initiative established in 2018 by the Muslim Council of Britain.
🤔
It’s the exact opposite of what you said, it’s a problem now because Starmer’s government dithered, and didn’t bail out Thames water - despite Victoria constantly telling them what to urgently do.
Bottom line what WOTN and Useless Lucy is talking about here on failing water companies, is finding nearly £50B of taxpayers money just to Nationalise Thames Water alone. We know this as fact because these costs are in the media everyday now - to honour creditors is about £20B, and continuing with the needed investment in engineering in the coming years is another £20B, and the emergency bit of legislation that does actually allow government to step in and manage a failing utility means accepting cover cash shortfalls maintaining clean running water services, and this often adds up £8B for about 3 years.
There’s three public listed and 12 privately owned English water companies in total, to nationalise all will cost about £200B. Where’s the money? Politics is not all about ideas, it’s about money. Got idea - can’t afford it - it doesn’t happen. Labour don’t have a spare fifty billion in order to use tax payer to take over Thames Water, so why doesn’t it just shut up, is my advice.
And this is why it’s abysmal politics. They don’t have even mere slither of £200B so they can’t deliver what they are hinting and promising they will do - so just like Sunak shredded himself and the Conservative standing at a “stop the boats” lectern for 2 years, and not stopping the boats, Burnham will do exactly the same putting out there all these “I’m going to do something about these water company” vibes. Because they will have to do something, and that something will be a massive let down now on all the hope and promise built up - equivalent in huge drop in polls. To do politics properly, what you’re not going to deliver what you are failing on, don’t do your opponents work advertising how crap you are. Don’t ever over promise on this scale.
And, not to forget how they get shredded by the court cases, trying to get out of paying investors and creditors what they are owed when nationalising - the tax payer gets hammered in the court defeats thanks to Labour. Labour won’t manage 120 MPs at the next General Election at this rate of rank political stupidity. It’s obvious already it’s going to be the most stupid useless government.
Farage is revealed as a chancer who can dish it out but not take it. Goodwin looks like an Argentinian footballer after 120 minutes, Kruger is being thoughtful and quiet. It's over.
I couldn't be happier if Putin leaves the Kremlin in a box. I am just not sure the attack on WildBerries is as clever a tactic as you believe it to be. By all means flatten oil refineries and the Black Sea fleet.
Just kicked the can down the road.
A hospital. They were keeping weapons there. A bridge. The army may use it. Water supply, the army may use it. Etc etc.
I was wondering what those tanks were doing on the streets.
Bartiromo: I don't understand how Iran has the capabilities to fight this way because the U.S. has obliterated Iran's military, and the president continues to reiterate that..
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2078854061890408825
LNG shipments into Europe are as low as they've been for year, btw.
Partly thanks to Asian buying from the US.
Prisons Minister Lord Timpson is the first resignation from government.
The role was a baptism of fire when Labour came to power in 2024 facing an overcrowding crisis in prisons.
He’s resigned rather than wait for Burnham’s reshuffle.
Your time is over.
Bankruptcy doesn’t mean the company going out of business. There is actually provision for this.
The ones that are collapsing, such as Thames Water, have taken on vast debt, which they are struggling to finance.
They go bankrupt, the business continues in receivership, while the bond holders and shareholders lose their shirts.
Without the tidal wave of debt, Thames Water would be highly profitable business.
Hell, without the debt, they could cut bills and invest massively at the same time.
The one bit that will probably be fucked up, is the government guaranteeing the suppliers bills, during the receivership, to prevent supply chain contagion.
Multiple Crewmembers Killed in Russian Strike on Turkish Bulker
"Over the weekend, Russian forces struck a Turkish-owned bulker off the coast of Odesa, killing six crewmembers and leaving four missing"
https://bsky.app/profile/mercoglianos.bsky.social/post/3mr2wfujun22m
However I fear it will. There seems to be little trust and little will to deescalate
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2079128234520650064?s=20
Islam is a relegion, an ideology. Islamophobia is fine. Discrimination against Muslims is wrong.
In the Russo-Ukraine war Russia has targeted civilians directly and purposefully, most obviously in the human safari in Kherson city. They have also targeted civilian infrastructure indiscriminately, including Nova Poshta - the Ukrainian postal service - and supermarket distribution warehouses.
It's possible that one purpose of the recent attacks by Ukraine on power stations and wildberries warehouses is to act as a deterrent against Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. To show the Russians that they are also vulnerable, and that a tacit understanding not to target civilian infrastructure would benefit both sides.
I fear this will not be successful, because the Russian leadership gives little more thought to its own people than to Ukrainians. But I can see the logic and I think it is worth a try.
Ukraine's lack of means to intercept ballistic missiles presages a very difficult winter, unless they can either deter such attacks, or prevent them by destroying the missile factories. Unfortunately, a recent attempt to attack one such factory with Flamingo missiles was defeated when Russian air defences were augmented by an A-50 AWACS and other aircraft.
War is hard.
“ Here we go again.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry:
We have received proposals from mediators aimed at de-escalating tensions, and they are currently under review”
https://x.com/hfi_research/status/2079109703947448778?s=61
Otherwise it's the King who is formally in charge all the time, at the head of his Privy Council, except insofar as he chooses to delegate his power to others.
Markets open in US in a few hours.
So, yes, here we go again.
Pretty much every single week the same.
All politicians gild the lily, but Starmer is so very bad at it.
He's onto his seventh PM or something like that.
Why didn’t Rubio just release it on the Truth Social premium line instead ? Give the
mugscustomers some bang for their buck.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx278ed09nzo
https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/2079120718017466846
I wish Andy Burnham every success as Prime Minister. But it is my job to hold him to account.
Every announcement he makes should be properly funded. We cannot borrow more money and the tax burden is already too high, so the only answer is spending cuts.
I will work with him in the national interest to find savings from the benefits bill. If we reach agreement, my Conservative MPs will vote for those cuts in Parliament. That's the way to get Britain working.
Tough sh!t for bondholders and shareholders, they took a risk and it didn’t work out.
But they both need to look at what they do to the triple lock as well and how that is reformed
Burnham wants a cross party consensus on care costs. He’s right.
Should include the triple lock.
He doesn’t have a clue how to.
My solution to every foreign policy issue would have been to nuke France.
"Starmer leaves Buckingham Palace
published at 12:03
12:03
BREAKING
Keir Starmer has left Buckingham Palace after stepping down as PM.
As is tradition, he exited privately along with his wife Lady Victoria."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgrkv8e8l9qt
See also entry at 11:40
The comic version of the lawsuit is to claim the government has a duty to prop them up, if they go bust. They don’t.
A legal challenge is inevitable, in all cases except the government backing Thames Water. Forever.
The Tories were the opposite in power.
The cream always rises to the top.
More importantly I *strongly* disagree with your distinction that Islamophobia is fine but discrimination against Muslims is wrong. Any more than antisemitism is fine but discrimination against Jews is wrong for example
It’s 30% off in the past three months.
https://x.com/tendar/status/2079155863923962235
Like everything else, there will be an element of negotiation in it, but here the government has by far the strongest hand, as long as they play it both forcefully and carefully. Shareholders ghouls politely be shown the door; bondholders to take a chunky haircut.
What would be unconscionable would be for the existing shareholders to retain ownership of assets which are effectively being refinanced by the bill payers.
One possible solution (which would fit with Burnham's cooperative principles) might be restructuring it under the mutual ownership of its customers, to recognise that reality.