Another sobering article on the jobs outlook for young people. One statistic that really jumped out at me was the 88% real terms cut in youth services spending in Dudley since 2011. And yet we can afford the triple lock, apparently. Does a country that is so careless with its young deserve a future?
Yes, this definitely should be bigger news. I feel sorry for young graduates and school leavers today, job prospects in some lines of work look terrible. Retail will be particularly bad for 16/17 year olds looking to get their first weekend job under their belt. Its not just a town centre thing, its right across the country
AI has a significant role there, as does the NI hike. Just looking for work has been made worse with AI. *sighs*
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
The power of parliament, before Brexit and now, is constrained by what the public will vote for. This does not include the sort of extreme right wing policies that float your boat or their left wing equivalent. The Brexit freedoms largely boil down to the ability to do things we don't want to do.
More to the point I think, is that the changing world, with the US walking away from its allies (or actually trying to harm them economically) has left us badly exposed outside of the European power block (and Brexit as also damaged that power block).
The kind of plans Brexiteers had ten years ago simply don't add up in today's world.
On topic, Labour are the value bet here. Tories are in to 4.3 for most seats on betfair. This seems a little short to me (for the time being), circumstances may work in their favour eventually.
I don't expect there will be an election until 2029, too many Lab MPs jackets on shoogly pegs and Burnham has a big chunk of the party supporting him right now.
3 years feels a longer time for Farage and Tice to tough it out that it does for Burnham
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
The irony is that a significant amount of care costs are being paid by individuals now, who often have to sell their property to fund this, as happened with my late mother who must have paid out at least £150,000 for the dementia care she needed for her final two years. That's the reality for many people with savings or who own their home, but not all, since whether the home counts towards your savings or not depends on the circumstances, specifically whether there's anyone else living there (also, if the carer comes to live with you, it doesn't count).
The Dilnot concept of capping the amount people pay themselves, so that the wealthy contribute but don't have their entire estate bled dry, was always a reasonable compromise.
The other issue for people paying for care is that the way the care home calculates its prices is essentially to work from the total income they need, deduct the amount being paid by council-funded residents, and divide the balance by the number of privately-funded residents. Because the amount per head that councils will fund is essentially fixed (rising with inflation), this means that fluctuations in the number of council-funded residents from one year to the next can have a dramatic effect on the amount charged to the remainder, particularly in homes where the private payers are in the minority (which is common).
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
The power of parliament, before Brexit and now, is constrained by what the public will vote for. This does not include the sort of extreme right wing policies that float your boat or their left wing equivalent. The Brexit freedoms largely boil down to the ability to do things we don't want to do.
More to the point I think, is that the changing world, with the US walking away from its allies (or actually trying to harm them economically) has left us badly exposed outside of the European power block (and Brexit as also damaged that power block).
The kind of plans Brexiteers had ten years ago simply don't add up in today's world.
The fact that Brexit was championed by those who seek to weaken Europe (Trump and Putin) is no coincidence.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
It’s a matter of degree (ha!)
You have the mills that take the fees, provide a piece of paper and provide the visa. They are much reduced, but not quite extinct.
But lots of “proper” universities are finding that they had built upon straw.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
It’s a matter of degree (ha!)
You have the mills that take the fees, provide a piece of paper and provide the visa. They are much reduced, but not quite extinct.
But lots of “proper” universities are finding that they had built upon straw.
Another sobering article on the jobs outlook for young people. One statistic that really jumped out at me was the 88% real terms cut in youth services spending in Dudley since 2011. And yet we can afford the triple lock, apparently. Does a country that is so careless with its young deserve a future?
Yes, this definitely should be bigger news. I feel sorry for young graduates and school leavers today, job prospects in some lines of work look terrible. Retail will be particularly bad for 16/17 year olds looking to get their first weekend job under their belt. Its not just a town centre thing, its right across the country
AI has a significant role there, as does the NI hike. Just looking for work has been made worse with AI. *sighs*
I suppose when you have the likes of Amazon warehouses situated in central parts of th country employing a lot of foreign staff it doesn't help.
AI will come for a lot of jobs yet, and the NI rise has been a disaster, particularly for hospitality. I can't speak for other parts of the country but around me even some of the successful pubs are on the market. Too much hassle, cant get staff at weekends, whatever it is, peoples lifestyles are changing
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
Because Badenoch thinks the State can fund huge new commitments in social care and defence through spending cuts elsewhere but she doesn't even hint at where these massive cuts are coming from, while she *opposed* the small savings of moving WFA to means testing.
* @IanB2 plausibly suggests the social care move is a cynical ploy, which would actually put her in a better light. Nevertheless given she proposes the same for defence funding, this suggests she does actually believe in the magic money savings tree.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
It’s a matter of degree (ha!)
You have the mills that take the fees, provide a piece of paper and provide the visa. They are much reduced, but not quite extinct.
But lots of “proper” universities are finding that they had built upon straw.
Lots of Unis have run into money troubles but there are lots of different reasons. Take Nottingham. A huge uni, successful etc. But they gambled on some property and have now run into problems as its not working, so academics will pay the price. Its not just about the failure by governments to increase the students fees (although thats part of it) and declining overseas students (part of it).
On most of the latest polls though Reform would win most seats still even if they fall short of a majority. So for Labour to win most seats there would need to be a lot of anti Reform tactical voting
I think there will be massive tactical voting in seats where Reform could win. Labour are set to be the main beneficiary from anti-Reform tactical voting simply because they will clearly be the anti-Reform party in the 411 seats they hold.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
Bloody lefty liberals spending other peoples hard earned. What they should really announce is that they are going to not just offer social care without any taxation, but also the NHS, pensions and defence too so can remove income tax completely. Would make just as much sense.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
It’s a matter of degree (ha!)
You have the mills that take the fees, provide a piece of paper and provide the visa. They are much reduced, but not quite extinct.
But lots of “proper” universities are finding that they had built upon straw.
Lots of Unis have run into money troubles but there are lots of different reasons. Take Nottingham. A huge uni, successful etc. But they gambled on some property and have now run into problems as its not working, so academics will pay the price. Its not just about the failure by governments to increase the students fees (although thats part of it) and declining overseas students (part of it).
Yup
One personal idea I like, it to merge the "vocational post 18" education system with the "academic" - so your plumber gets a degree. And your poetry grads have to do some practical, like electrical engineering.
Aside from revitalising the university sector, it would breakdown the last big social barrier - between "white collar" and "blue collar"
I was involved in the Maker Space thing for a while - communal workshops. It was fascinating to see the near desperation to do something in The Real from people whose jobs were just playing with Excel all the time. Even just basic woodwork.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
The power of parliament, before Brexit and now, is constrained by what the public will vote for. This does not include the sort of extreme right wing policies that float your boat or their left wing equivalent. The Brexit freedoms largely boil down to the ability to do things we don't want to do.
More to the point I think, is that the changing world, with the US walking away from its allies (or actually trying to harm them economically) has left us badly exposed outside of the European power block (and Brexit as also damaged that power block).
The kind of plans Brexiteers had ten years ago simply don't add up in today's world.
Yes that's the main hard negative. My point speaks mainly to its pointlessness (for so much time and political energy invested) which is a different sort of negative.
Freya (missile system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freya_(missile_system)# ..a pan-European anti-ballistic missile defense project initiated and led by the Ukrainian defense company Fire Point. It is explicitly designed as an open-architecture "system of systems" that integrates with existing NATO-standard radars, command posts, and data links rather than functioning as a standalone national system. The project’s stated aim is to deliver a lower-cost, higher-volume alternative to the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 for intercepting ballistic missiles, addressing the economic asymmetry Ukraine has faced during the Russo-Ukrainian war when using multimillion-dollar interceptors against cheaper threats. Cost estimates for a successful intercept are around US$700,000 per shot, compared with roughly US$3.8 million for a Patriot missile.
The initial interceptor missile is a light mobile unit produced by Fire Point and will be an extension of the FP-7, called FP-7.x. It is a 7.25 m (24 ft)-long, composite-material missile with a maximum speed of 1,500–2,000 m/s (4,900–6,600 ft/s; Mach 4.4 – Mach 5.9). It uses a semi-active image infrared seeker developed in partnership with Germany’s Diehl Defence (IRIS family). The system is intended to work with a wide range of European radars including the Swedish SAAB Giraffe 8A/4A, French Thales Ground Master 400, German Hensoldt TRML-4D, Danish Weibel GFTR-2100/48, Italian Leonardo KRONOS Land and the Norwegian Kongsberg Fire Direction Centre (FDC) command post. Integration occurs primarily through the NATO-standard Link 16 protocol, with additional open-technology elements such as the ASTERIX protocol for radar connectivity.
The project recycles elements of Soviet-era S-300 technology in the Ukrainian interceptor while building the broader command-and-control and seeker architecture around Western components..
I could help address our complete lack of land based ballistic missile defence.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
The power of parliament, before Brexit and now, is constrained by what the public will vote for. This does not include the sort of extreme right wing policies that float your boat or their left wing equivalent. The Brexit freedoms largely boil down to the ability to do things we don't want to do.
More to the point I think, is that the changing world, with the US walking away from its allies (or actually trying to harm them economically) has left us badly exposed outside of the European power block (and Brexit as also damaged that power block).
The kind of plans Brexiteers had ten years ago simply don't add up in today's world.
The fact that Brexit was championed by those who seek to weaken Europe (Trump and Putin) is no coincidence.
It is more than that. They want to weaken not just the EU, but also every democratic nation state, wherever it is, and shift that power to an oligarchy they and their families play a key role in.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I believe we will rejoin in about 10 years. Part of the Brexit plan was strong ties with US and that's been blown clear out of the water as I doubt many people will ever want to rely on the US again.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
Nope, there are a lot of universities where specialist courses have been destroyed by an inability for foreigners to get visas.
Twin b’s masters had only half the expected people as none of the US students got given visas to attend (given how specialist it was all those people had millionaire parents paying for the fun of it).
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
You could do something similar with prescriptions in England. I believe about 10% are paid for. So charge £1, the saving comes from abolishing the department in Newcastle that administers it
The department in Newcastle, i.e. NHS Business Services does a lot more than just administering prescriptions and is already very understaffed. This would be another fairytale saving.
I agree about the department in Newcastle, but there would be some administrative savings. Some of those would be for community pharmacists, who wouldn't have to faff around getting people to tick the right box on the piece of paper.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
I don't think this is true. After all Starmer somehow won a majority with about 33.7% of the vote. Its not impossible that Reform sink without trace. It would only take one heart attack or stroke after all.
I don't agree with her on this. We have avoided the question on social care for far too long. We also have a set of hugely selfish people who believe that they have the right to inherit their parents wealth, including the vastly inflated money from house price inflation yet everyone else should pay for their dad's arse to be wiped when Alzheimer's sets in. I do despair of our country at times.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
I don't think this is true. After all Starmer somehow won a majority with about 33.7% of the vote. Its not impossible that Reform sink without trace. It would only take one heart attack or stroke after all.
I don't agree with her on this. We have avoided the question on social care for far too long. We also have a set of hugely selfish people who believe that they have the right to inherit their parents wealth, including the vastly inflated money from house price inflation yet everyone else should pay for their dad's arse to be wiped when Alzheimer's sets in. I do despair of our country at times.
Times? I despair anytime I look at almost anything
Freya (missile system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freya_(missile_system)# ..a pan-European anti-ballistic missile defense project initiated and led by the Ukrainian defense company Fire Point. It is explicitly designed as an open-architecture "system of systems" that integrates with existing NATO-standard radars, command posts, and data links rather than functioning as a standalone national system. The project’s stated aim is to deliver a lower-cost, higher-volume alternative to the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 for intercepting ballistic missiles, addressing the economic asymmetry Ukraine has faced during the Russo-Ukrainian war when using multimillion-dollar interceptors against cheaper threats. Cost estimates for a successful intercept are around US$700,000 per shot, compared with roughly US$3.8 million for a Patriot missile.
The initial interceptor missile is a light mobile unit produced by Fire Point and will be an extension of the FP-7, called FP-7.x. It is a 7.25 m (24 ft)-long, composite-material missile with a maximum speed of 1,500–2,000 m/s (4,900–6,600 ft/s; Mach 4.4 – Mach 5.9). It uses a semi-active image infrared seeker developed in partnership with Germany’s Diehl Defence (IRIS family). The system is intended to work with a wide range of European radars including the Swedish SAAB Giraffe 8A/4A, French Thales Ground Master 400, German Hensoldt TRML-4D, Danish Weibel GFTR-2100/48, Italian Leonardo KRONOS Land and the Norwegian Kongsberg Fire Direction Centre (FDC) command post. Integration occurs primarily through the NATO-standard Link 16 protocol, with additional open-technology elements such as the ASTERIX protocol for radar connectivity.
The project recycles elements of Soviet-era S-300 technology in the Ukrainian interceptor while building the broader command-and-control and seeker architecture around Western components..
I could help address our complete lack of land based ballistic missile defence.
It seems to be following the modern pattern for redevelopment in IT. Big bang changes don't work, so you write converter systems to connect the old and the new, to a common standard. You can then replace elements in the system - keeping it modular.
The traditionalists get shocked by the "waste:" of money - sometimes 50% of the work is in the converter systems. I've had some hilarious conversations which go like this
1) We need to replace this legacy system 2) The 3 previous attempts failed - would require years of development to create a new system from scratch, and the projects died. 3) But incremental wastes money. 4) But Big Bang doesn't work 5) But incremental wastes money. :: repeat forever.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
... although neither is a privatised by stealth NHS and dismantling of the triple lock.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
And I think less of Badenoch for her kneejerk opposition. She could have said she welcomed progress on an important issue and would work with the government, but wanted to make sure a new system was fair, etc. Instead, she basically asks for the impossible.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
And I think less of Badenoch for her kneejerk opposition. She could have said she welcomed progress on an important issue and would work with the government, but wanted to make sure a new system was fair, etc. Instead, she basically asks for the impossible.
This is her letter to Burnham which seems sensible
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
You voted remain but supported Sunak, Truss and Johnson until they were defenestrated and you didn't.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
And I think less of Badenoch for her kneejerk opposition. She could have said she welcomed progress on an important issue and would work with the government, but wanted to make sure a new system was fair, etc. Instead, she basically asks for the impossible.
This is her letter to Burnham which seems perfectly sensible
As long as PB exists we will never do any big fundamental reform of how the country works that we could not have done as a member of the EU.
It’ll almost certainly be the UK being outside the EU on AI and ‘Big Tech’ regulation.
The biggest savings come from being outside the ratchet, which happens all by itself.
Ok. Well if our outsider status leads to a big comparative (and utilised) advantage on technology that counts and I will lose my bet.
As we speak I remain confident that my wallet will remain in cobwebs.
It makes sense to find regulatory niches, on a we-are-where-we-are basis. Take a country that's been in the news - Montenegro, which has found a niche in the intersection between crypto and gambling. So we can find niches that aren't possible as an EU member. Not so much Singapore-on-Thames as Montenegro-in-the-Pennines, which presumably is Farage's actual policy.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
And I think less of Badenoch for her kneejerk opposition. She could have said she welcomed progress on an important issue and would work with the government, but wanted to make sure a new system was fair, etc. Instead, she basically asks for the impossible.
This is her letter to Burnham which seems perfectly sensible
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
And I think less of Badenoch for her kneejerk opposition. She could have said she welcomed progress on an important issue and would work with the government, but wanted to make sure a new system was fair, etc. Instead, she basically asks for the impossible.
This is her letter to Burnham which seems sensible
Can we also fund the defence increases without taxes? What else? Why bother with taxes at all?
The Conservative party used to win as it was the party of realists, not fantasists. If we want fantasists we have Corbyn and Farage already.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
Freya (missile system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freya_(missile_system)# ..a pan-European anti-ballistic missile defense project initiated and led by the Ukrainian defense company Fire Point. It is explicitly designed as an open-architecture "system of systems" that integrates with existing NATO-standard radars, command posts, and data links rather than functioning as a standalone national system. The project’s stated aim is to deliver a lower-cost, higher-volume alternative to the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 for intercepting ballistic missiles, addressing the economic asymmetry Ukraine has faced during the Russo-Ukrainian war when using multimillion-dollar interceptors against cheaper threats. Cost estimates for a successful intercept are around US$700,000 per shot, compared with roughly US$3.8 million for a Patriot missile.
The initial interceptor missile is a light mobile unit produced by Fire Point and will be an extension of the FP-7, called FP-7.x. It is a 7.25 m (24 ft)-long, composite-material missile with a maximum speed of 1,500–2,000 m/s (4,900–6,600 ft/s; Mach 4.4 – Mach 5.9). It uses a semi-active image infrared seeker developed in partnership with Germany’s Diehl Defence (IRIS family). The system is intended to work with a wide range of European radars including the Swedish SAAB Giraffe 8A/4A, French Thales Ground Master 400, German Hensoldt TRML-4D, Danish Weibel GFTR-2100/48, Italian Leonardo KRONOS Land and the Norwegian Kongsberg Fire Direction Centre (FDC) command post. Integration occurs primarily through the NATO-standard Link 16 protocol, with additional open-technology elements such as the ASTERIX protocol for radar connectivity.
The project recycles elements of Soviet-era S-300 technology in the Ukrainian interceptor while building the broader command-and-control and seeker architecture around Western components..
I could help address our complete lack of land based ballistic missile defence.
It seems to be following the modern pattern for redevelopment in IT. Big bang changes don't work, so you write converter systems to connect the old and the new, to a common standard. You can then replace elements in the system - keeping it modular.
The traditionalists get shocked by the "waste:" of money - sometimes 50% of the work is in the converter systems. I've had some hilarious conversations which go like this
1) We need to replace this legacy system 2) The 3 previous attempts failed - would require years of development to create a new system from scratch, and the projects died. 3) But incremental wastes money. 4) But Big Bang doesn't work 5) But incremental wastes money. :: repeat forever.
This new intercepter project is a great example of where integration with existing systems should work well.
What they need is a smaller and cheaper Patriot missile, for shooting down incoming short and medium range missiles. The existing Patriot is great, but it’s designed for taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, costs a fortune to fire it. Not only that, but there’s a worldwide shortage of them at the moment, and the lead time on each missile is two years.
That everyone has a shortage of Patriots, including the US, UK, EU, NATO, and Gulf States, suggests that a smaller and cheaper version that integrates well will have a huge initial demand.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
The problem isn't Brexit - it is that centristdadism a la Sunak didn't appeal to the electorate, and Farage therefore stole our clothes.
Have you seen how coal-fired power stations Hungary is building?
And how many the UK is building? It's a world problem. The UK is doing more than its share of the heavy lifting - but the world is still getting hotter.
Most nations are committed to net zero by 2050 though, China by 2060 and India by 2070
As long as PB exists we will never do any big fundamental reform of how the country works that we could not have done as a member of the EU.
It’ll almost certainly be the UK being outside the EU on AI and ‘Big Tech’ regulation.
The biggest savings come from being outside the ratchet, which happens all by itself.
The ratchet is like compound interest. Every year, our increased prosperity builds on itself. Result, happiness. Of course, if Brexit leads to a decline relative to the EU, then that too will be compounded over the years. (Or racket got autocorrected.)
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
If that were the case, re LDs, then surely Jo Swinson would have been our 'next PM'. Lol.
The EUfixation of so many here is baffling to behold. Most people have moved on.....
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Plus set tuition fees according to graduate earning premium of the course, not one size fits all as now
Fingers crossed this relationship survives the change of administration, as has happened previously.
Do you know more ? We already have quite a lot of this, do we not, both with Ukraine and for our own industry?
I'm interested - the tweet seems to hint at sea drones.
From other sources, it does appear that Z is passing through London today on his way to the UN meeting in New York, so we might get more details then.
I suspect that this isn’t just the small air drones, but larger models of land, sea, and air drones, all of which the Ukranians have developed or adapted for the war, and could be licensed or copied by the usual defence industry suspects. The key to the technology is that the hardware is simple and cheap, derived from existing non-military tech, and the hard work is done in software which can be regularly updated.
For example a medium-range air drone looks like a little flying school Cessna, but with extra fuel tanks and a bomb where the seats and instruments would be, while a naval drone is a Ski-Doo or a recreational boat underneath. Cheap and cheerful.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
This is why the PB Tory notion that all non Reformers/ Restorers will rally around Badenoch in order to tactically vote against Reform/ Restore is a nonsense.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
This is why the PB Tory notion that all non Reformers/ Restorers will rally around Badenoch in order to tactically vote against Reform/ Restore is a nonsense.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Plus set tuition fees according to graduate earning premium of the course, not one size fits all as now
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
What happens if a Minister brings the Care Act 2014 into force? As Dan puts it:
Parliament legislated for a cap on lifetime care costs in the Care Act 2014. Like most legislation, it just needed a minister to make a commencement order to bring the cap into force. Unlike most legislation, no commencement order was ever made.
(We dealt with mum's care by having assets in her name to fund it to avoid family tensions, and then she did not need very much care, and we paid a big chunk - six figures - of IHT. We paid our money and made our choice, but the other way round.)
Another sobering article on the jobs outlook for young people. One statistic that really jumped out at me was the 88% real terms cut in youth services spending in Dudley since 2011. And yet we can afford the triple lock, apparently. Does a country that is so careless with its young deserve a future?
Yep, it’s not good. I’m depressed by the high quality of several recent unsolicited CVs dropped off with us by youngsters looking for work (it’s a piddly little shop to avoid accusations of humble bragging). I guess the situation is roughly analogous with the 80s without the Bruce bonus of NS oil, and the deprivation less geographically centred.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
As long as PB exists we will never do any big fundamental reform of how the country works that we could not have done as a member of the EU.
It’ll almost certainly be the UK being outside the EU on AI and ‘Big Tech’ regulation.
The biggest savings come from being outside the ratchet, which happens all by itself.
Ok. Well if our outsider status leads to a big comparative (and utilised) advantage on technology that counts and I will lose my bet.
As we speak I remain confident that my wallet will remain in cobwebs.
It makes sense to find regulatory niches, on a we-are-where-we-are basis. Take a country that's been in the news - Montenegro, which has found a niche in the intersection between crypto and gambling. So we can find niches that aren't possible as an EU member. Not so much Singapore-on-Thames as Montenegro-in-the-Pennines, which presumably is Farage's actual policy.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
If that were the case, re LDs, then surely Jo Swinson would have been our 'next PM'. Lol.
The EUfixation of so many here is baffling to behold. Most people have moved on.....
Well, yes. Just why are you so fixated on Brexit that you think the centre-right has disappeared because of it?
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
No, he also suggested social insurance on the model of Japan or Germany.
Burnham has suggested a 10% levy on estates to pay for social care and scrapping inheritance tax and it makes sense for Badenoch and Farage to oppose that as the main gainers would be those with estates over £1 million and their heirs who currently pay 40% inheritance tax over £1 million assets
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
The problem isn't Brexit - it is that centristdadism a la Sunak didn't appeal to the electorate, and Farage therefore stole our clothes.
Brexit has gone as well as the Baggies 2025/26 season. Just above the waterline, but only just.
Farage is (potentially) winning because of his racism. See his response to the atrocity in Germany over the weekend. I am hoping the Tories aren't thinking that is a cunning master plan.
Just heard an independent financial adviser on the council tax and care proposals outline the issues and unlike a £2 bus fare cap that can be done quickly, this change will take years not least because all land and property would need a valuation, the HMRC and Valuation offices do not have the capacity and it could involve higher taxes for many
She suggested a 5 to 10 year timescale and why it is essential any agreement is cross party so that it survives an election which is probably the most important point
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
If that were the case, re LDs, then surely Jo Swinson would have been our 'next PM'. Lol.
The EUfixation of so many here is baffling to behold. Most people have moved on.....
Well, yes. Just why are you so fixated on Brexit that you think the centre-right has disappeared because of it?
The centre- right has almost disappeared from the Conservative Party.
Another sobering article on the jobs outlook for young people. One statistic that really jumped out at me was the 88% real terms cut in youth services spending in Dudley since 2011. And yet we can afford the triple lock, apparently. Does a country that is so careless with its young deserve a future?
Well, youth services are funded by councils and the triple lock isn't, so it's doubly irrelevant. Two hours to travel 10 miles to jobs in the next town seems a more likely factor than pension levels. Youth service cutbacks are important but not everything has to be related.
As long as PB exists we will never do any big fundamental reform of how the country works that we could not have done as a member of the EU.
It’ll almost certainly be the UK being outside the EU on AI and ‘Big Tech’ regulation.
The biggest savings come from being outside the ratchet, which happens all by itself.
Ok. Well if our outsider status leads to a big comparative (and utilised) advantage on technology that counts and I will lose my bet.
As we speak I remain confident that my wallet will remain in cobwebs.
It makes sense to find regulatory niches, on a we-are-where-we-are basis. Take a country that's been in the news - Montenegro, which has found a niche in the intersection between crypto and gambling. So we can find niches that aren't possible as an EU member. Not so much Singapore-on-Thames as Montenegro-in-the-Pennines, which presumably is Farage's actual policy.
Montenegro is joining the EU in 2028. Moldova on the Humber is the most likely Fukker trajectory.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
The problem isn't Brexit - it is that centristdadism a la Sunak didn't appeal to the electorate, and Farage therefore stole our clothes.
Polling suggests that it was questions of competence rather than policy that sank the Tories at the last general election (and continue to depress their polling now). That is, it wasn't centristdadism that the electorate disliked, it was things like Partygate and the Truss chaos.
As long as PB exists we will never do any big fundamental reform of how the country works that we could not have done as a member of the EU.
It’ll almost certainly be the UK being outside the EU on AI and ‘Big Tech’ regulation.
The biggest savings come from being outside the ratchet, which happens all by itself.
Ok. Well if our outsider status leads to a big comparative (and utilised) advantage on technology that counts and I will lose my bet.
As we speak I remain confident that my wallet will remain in cobwebs.
It makes sense to find regulatory niches, on a we-are-where-we-are basis. Take a country that's been in the news - Montenegro, which has found a niche in the intersection between crypto and gambling. So we can find niches that aren't possible as an EU member. Not so much Singapore-on-Thames as Montenegro-in-the-Pennines, which presumably is Farage's actual policy.
Bit tacky - but needs must I suppose.
Yup. Those complaining about a lack of Brexit dividends are quite wrong. Farage has found lots of dividends.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
If that were the case, re LDs, then surely Jo Swinson would have been our 'next PM'. Lol.
The EUfixation of so many here is baffling to behold. Most people have moved on.....
Well, yes. Just why are you so fixated on Brexit that you think the centre-right has disappeared because of it?
Brexit caused Boris to sling out a large part of the centre-right, so they are not unrelated.
I kind of agree with the principle highlighted, though not personally a huge fan of Private White VC. Their clothes are very good quality but not outstanding. I think they overdo the golden age of empire nostalgia a bit.
Don't know anything about Andy Burnham, but I recognize the room in the middle photo. That's Private White VC.
Freya (missile system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freya_(missile_system)# ..a pan-European anti-ballistic missile defense project initiated and led by the Ukrainian defense company Fire Point. It is explicitly designed as an open-architecture "system of systems" that integrates with existing NATO-standard radars, command posts, and data links rather than functioning as a standalone national system. The project’s stated aim is to deliver a lower-cost, higher-volume alternative to the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 for intercepting ballistic missiles, addressing the economic asymmetry Ukraine has faced during the Russo-Ukrainian war when using multimillion-dollar interceptors against cheaper threats. Cost estimates for a successful intercept are around US$700,000 per shot, compared with roughly US$3.8 million for a Patriot missile.
The initial interceptor missile is a light mobile unit produced by Fire Point and will be an extension of the FP-7, called FP-7.x. It is a 7.25 m (24 ft)-long, composite-material missile with a maximum speed of 1,500–2,000 m/s (4,900–6,600 ft/s; Mach 4.4 – Mach 5.9). It uses a semi-active image infrared seeker developed in partnership with Germany’s Diehl Defence (IRIS family). The system is intended to work with a wide range of European radars including the Swedish SAAB Giraffe 8A/4A, French Thales Ground Master 400, German Hensoldt TRML-4D, Danish Weibel GFTR-2100/48, Italian Leonardo KRONOS Land and the Norwegian Kongsberg Fire Direction Centre (FDC) command post. Integration occurs primarily through the NATO-standard Link 16 protocol, with additional open-technology elements such as the ASTERIX protocol for radar connectivity.
The project recycles elements of Soviet-era S-300 technology in the Ukrainian interceptor while building the broader command-and-control and seeker architecture around Western components..
I could help address our complete lack of land based ballistic missile defence.
It seems to be following the modern pattern for redevelopment in IT. Big bang changes don't work, so you write converter systems to connect the old and the new, to a common standard. You can then replace elements in the system - keeping it modular.
The traditionalists get shocked by the "waste:" of money - sometimes 50% of the work is in the converter systems. I've had some hilarious conversations which go like this
1) We need to replace this legacy system 2) The 3 previous attempts failed - would require years of development to create a new system from scratch, and the projects died. 3) But incremental wastes money. 4) But Big Bang doesn't work 5) But incremental wastes money. :: repeat forever.
With the difference that the actual rocket bits in missile systems don't obsolete any where near as fast as (see also APKWS, which uses a rocket motor originally designed and built in the early 70s).
It (the Freya rocket) won't be state of the art, but it doesn't need to be, and the radar and guidance will be fully modernised.
Fingers crossed this relationship survives the change of administration, as has happened previously.
Do you know more ? We already have quite a lot of this, do we not, both with Ukraine and for our own industry?
I'm interested - the tweet seems to hint at sea drones.
From other sources, it does appear that Z is passing through London today on his way to the UN meeting in New York, so we might get more details then.
I suspect that this isn’t just the small air drones, but larger models of land, sea, and air drones, all of which the Ukranians have developed or adapted for the war, and could be licensed or copied by the usual defence industry suspects. The key to the technology is that the hardware is simple and cheap, derived from existing non-military tech, and the hard work is done in software which can be regularly updated.
For example a medium-range air drone looks like a little flying school Cessna, but with extra fuel tanks and a bomb where the seats and instruments would be, while a naval drone is a Ski-Doo or a recreational boat underneath. Cheap and cheerful.
I'm also interested in what will be done with this new MOD drone test DroneTEX facility in Swindon, which is reportedly 12 acres, indoors, and is the largest in Europe.
I don't dispute that is probably as nonsensical as Farage's linking LGBT "support" for Islamic terrorism to the murder of people at an LGBTQ rally in Germany by a suspected Muslim terrorist.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
The problem isn't Brexit - it is that centristdadism a la Sunak didn't appeal to the electorate, and Farage therefore stole our clothes.
Polling suggests that it was questions of competence rather than policy that sank the Tories at the last general election (and continue to depress their polling now). That is, it wasn't centristdadism that the electorate disliked, it was things like Partygate and the Truss chaos.
Add in soaring immigration (Boriswave) after pledging to slash immigration.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Mistake or not it has happened and is not going to be reversed anytime soon
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
I wasn't suggesting Brexit will be reversed I was arguing that the Tories are increasingly going to be seen as having backed the wrong horse and losing all their Remain voters is why they are struggling now.
I voted remain but support Kemi
Fair enough but millions don't. Brexit was the key reason that the Tories lost all those seats to the Lib Dems last time. Is Badenoch going to win them all back? I doubt it.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
This is why the PB Tory notion that all non Reformers/ Restorers will rally around Badenoch in order to tactically vote against Reform/ Restore is a nonsense.
Hold on HY, We sorted this yesterday - the sentiment polling you keep posting to support this argument didn’t happen in the actual elections!
Which is stronger to put into Tactical Voting seat generators - “sentiment polling” or actual votes? There is plenty of analysis of the actual votes in recent May 26 that challenges the actual reality of your “sentiment polling” from previous feb 26 doing so much heavy lifting to your argument.
Sam Freedman done a piece that right-wing tactical voting doesn’t materialise because is highly contested battle for same seats - many of Reform’s key target seats the Conservatives are already sitting in first or second place, which complicates the logic of Reform voters stepping aside to "tactically" back a Tory candidate. And that’s what Reform leaders and their voters actually done in the real elections May 26, campaigned hard against the Conservatives, as is their very existence depended on it - and doing that in campaign shaped what their voters eventually voted. https://samf.substack.com/p/how-to-beat-reform
Playing with the tactical vote levels on this page is fun https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/demographic-swingometer/ but, garbage in garbage out, the most sensible thing to feed into it is what voters are actually doing when choosing councils in the May elections, not sentiment stuff in polling. I reckon the closest thing to replicating next GE we can feed in right now is what happens in May locals, but that’s still a subtly different thing than what goes through voters minds when choosing a government and PM, so still not replicating the next GE. But the May analysis in tactical voting levels on seat generator is still closer than using sentiment polling for the reasons I just gave.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
The problem isn't Brexit - it is that centristdadism a la Sunak didn't appeal to the electorate, and Farage therefore stole our clothes.
Polling suggests that it was questions of competence rather than policy that sank the Tories at the last general election (and continue to depress their polling now). That is, it wasn't centristdadism that the electorate disliked, it was things like Partygate and the Truss chaos.
Add in soaring immigration (Boriswave) after pledging to slash immigration.
They talked from the right but governed from the left, that’s what did for them.
How many times did Sunak go on about stopping the boats and Rwanda, while not actually doing it?
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Why is Badenoch wrong to not explain what she would cut but Burnham is not criticised for not explaining how he might fund?
The FT still have their page where you can 'run the country' from the Treasury. Have a look.
Perhaps there is a need for an overview. The FT game gives choices. Do you want to cut. where and by how much. It generates a financial outcome to show debt, taxes and the effect on different departments. So there is no 'correct' answer but it does allow anyone to test their theories before they are released into the wild. Then it's all about explaining to the losers why they should still vote for the hypothetical PM/Chancellor.
But if you want me to put something up for you to have a go at, then most costs are hardwired into the budget through legislation. So a minor party (LibDems / Conservatives / Reform etc) can spout a lot of hot air but have no means of effecting them at present. They don't even have any leverage given the size of Labours majority. To effect change requires votes *and* the ability to get the legislation through parliament. Kemi has neither, nor a plan, nor a menu - only soundbites.
Badenoch knows that there is usually a good political payoff from opposing social care proposals - but also knows that if there's a spirit of consensus, there's a risk in being seen as the one who isn't playing along. Hence, cynically, she's setting down ground rules she knows will be impossible to meet, hoping that this will 'justify' the Tories' eventual opposition to whatever proposal the government (and other parties, hopefully), might come up with.
Interesting and you're probably right. This cynicism about how to pay for it is how every previous social welfare proposal was sunk. It would be less disingenuous to say the state shouldn't be in the business of providing social care but Badenoch doesn't want to say that, so she can achieve the same outcome by pretending it's due to government mismanagement of expenditure.
No, he also suggested social insurance on the model of Japan or Germany.
Burnham has suggested a 10% levy on estates to pay for social care and scrapping inheritance tax and it makes sense for Badenoch and Farage to oppose that as the main gainers would be those with estates over £1 million and their heirs who currently pay 40% inheritance tax over £1 million assets
That does not look to me like a complete package, more like an exaggeration of one aspect. I do not see where the extra will come from.
I could see it being, for example, a 10% of estate cap for any individual as one aspect - instead of a flat cap. A Burnham package would not relatively advantage wealthier people more than they are already advantaged.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
Nope, there are a lot of universities where specialist courses have been destroyed by an inability for foreigners to get visas.
Twin b’s masters had only half the expected people as none of the US students got given visas to attend (given how specialist it was all those people had millionaire parents paying for the fun of it).
What was the problem with Americans signed up for Masters’ degrees at good universities? That’s crazy.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
Whilst continuing to mislead as to what Brexit would involve, implying there would be a very decent Brexit 'deal' whereas in practice the right of the Tory Party drove us to what was in effect a no deal hard Brexit.
And now people can see the damage that's being done and the complete absence of any significant benefit.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
Nope, there are a lot of universities where specialist courses have been destroyed by an inability for foreigners to get visas.
Twin b’s masters had only half the expected people as none of the US students got given visas to attend (given how specialist it was all those people had millionaire parents paying for the fun of it).
What was the problem with Americans signed up for Masters’ degrees at good universities? That’s crazy.
We have to be careful with countries with lots of religious fundamentalist zealots who hate democracy these days.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
Politicians are just a bit slow in recognising the reality: we need massive deregulation to encourage economic growth. That is the only way to afford our over generous welfare state....
Now there is a way the government can save an awful lot of money.
Undergrad student finance to be negotiated between student, institution, and lender, with no government involvement, underwriting, or backstopping loans.
Large number of second grade towns get decimated as their biggest employer of middle class workers closes up shop instantly leaving large numbers of large buildings unused..
Or they can offer competitive courses that increase earning potential, else look for more international students who will write a bigger cheque.
You may not have noticed this but over the past 5 years we’ve cut an awful lot of overseas students from coming here
I thought that most of the decrease was of dubious colleges that were basically fronts for immigration, as opposed to genuine universities offering full-time degree courses?
Nope, there are a lot of universities where specialist courses have been destroyed by an inability for foreigners to get visas.
Twin b’s masters had only half the expected people as none of the US students got given visas to attend (given how specialist it was all those people had millionaire parents paying for the fun of it).
What was the problem with Americans signed up for Masters’ degrees at good universities? That’s crazy.
We have to be careful with countries with lots of religious fundamentalist zealots who hate democracy these days.
The people running the university were too stupid to open a vape shop. Then the American students could have got visas to work there.
EDIT: It is entertaining to see how visas from some countries and regions are extremely difficult to obtain. Yet for others, there seems to be no interest in even checking.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
The problem isn't Brexit - it is that centristdadism a la Sunak didn't appeal to the electorate, and Farage therefore stole our clothes.
Polling suggests that it was questions of competence rather than policy that sank the Tories at the last general election (and continue to depress their polling now). That is, it wasn't centristdadism that the electorate disliked, it was things like Partygate and the Truss chaos.
From the moment Covid started, accelerated by the inflationary spikes from opening up post covid, PB was running commentary on all the sitting governments losing power around the world, one by one. Even places where governing parties havn’t lost election for half a century, they lost. Even places where they don’t have democratic elections, the rulers still lost the elections.
This mass ejection event wasn’t on ideology - to neccisate you have to tear up what always made you winners, move your party across the political spectrum with new policies to make you winners again. What Kemi is doing is hasty and stupid.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
Whilst continuing to mislead as to what Brexit would involve, implying there would be a very decent Brexit 'deal' whereas in practice the right of the Tory Party drove us to what was in effect a no deal hard Brexit.
And now people can see the damage that's being done and the complete absence of any significant benefit.
How successful have the Conservatives been in GEs post the UK's actual Brexit in Jan 2020?
Another sobering article on the jobs outlook for young people. One statistic that really jumped out at me was the 88% real terms cut in youth services spending in Dudley since 2011. And yet we can afford the triple lock, apparently. Does a country that is so careless with its young deserve a future?
Well, youth services are funded by councils and the triple lock isn't, so it's doubly irrelevant. Two hours to travel 10 miles to jobs in the next town seems a more likely factor than pension levels. Youth service cutbacks are important but not everything has to be related.
The cut to youth funding by councils followed directly from the cut to council funding by central government so it's absurd to claim the two are unrelated. The quote about it taking two hours to get from Dudley to Birmingham certainly stood out (although Google Maps puts it at more like an hour).
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
Whilst continuing to mislead as to what Brexit would involve, implying there would be a very decent Brexit 'deal' whereas in practice the right of the Tory Party drove us to what was in effect a no deal hard Brexit.
And now people can see the damage that's being done and the complete absence of any significant benefit.
The damage is very much in the eye of the beholder. We had some excellent posts on here taking apart the claims of economic damage and showing that the comparisons with the EU show not much real effect. Same for benefits, but arguably again in the eye of the beholder.
Excl: Kemi Badenoch will only support Andy Burnham’s social care reforms if they are funded by cutting spending rather than raising taxes.
Beginning to sound like a LibDem. Can you imagine the gales of laughter from the Labour back benches if Ed Davey said the same. Labour are being kind in not pointing out how irrelevant her votes are.
Will some journalist please stand up for common sense and show an IQ above 10 and actually ask her how the fuck do you solve an issue that successive Governments including the one she served in and whch held power for 14 years can implement such massive change that is required without taxing more or borrowing more.
Seriously.
She has no answers, just stupid sound bites delivered with utter arrogance and contempt for commonsense!
Try getting used to the idea of Govt. spending less.
It's the only way out of our woes.
At least one politician has the guts to say it. You can’t tax your way to growth, and there needs to be a reduction in the scope of government.
Now, actually putting a specific reduction of the scope of government in a manifesto, and then get elected on it, is a more difficult exercise, but at least Kemi is working in the right direction in opposition.
She's in opposition without any chance of getting elected.
However she wants cuts so I would give her some and just tell all Labour Mps to have the night off so that the Tory party owns the cuts.
Badenoch is pretty ridiculous here promising to collaborate with social care reform *if it doesn't cost anything*.
I note she doesn't suggest where she's gong to save £14bn a year. On top of the increase in defence spending she's advocating.
It's the usual "we'll cut waste" rhetoric.
Is there potential on the right of politics to advocate leaner government - of course. But that means government doing less. And until they're honest about what they would cut, and how they cut, and who would lose out, it's no more than the same rhetoric we've heard for decades.
Burnham sets his stall out with the "Government can do more". Socialism from 40 years ago.
That means more borrowing/more tax/likely both.
There is a greater tana evens chance that doesn't deliver - or at least becomes very unpopular as the perceived benefits don't outweigh the real costs.
Well, that’s because the electorate is detached from reality and thinks everything is free, or should be free
Burnham better change the electorate then.
We need to educate the electorate - as we can't change them.
But that's an impossible task especially when Kemi is playing politics badly. This is an interesting and accurate insight into the harm Kemi is doing
Said this before, will again. Badenoch is the most dangerous figure in British politics. She's not as extreme as Farage or Lowe, but her impact is more pernicious. She actively prevents the British centre-right from adopting moderate positions, and thereby facilitates the radicalisation process.
Instead, what is she doing? Purging moderates in her party who still believe in human rights and climate change. Fucks her electoral prospects, fucks conservatism, fucks British public life. She really is a wicked malignant idiot.
The 'centre right' hasn't existed since 2016. The majority of the wets couldn't stomach the power that Brexit gave us and either joined the LDs or threw their toys out of the pram in the media.
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
Predictable bed wetting from the EUzealots in reply to my pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
Whilst continuing to mislead as to what Brexit would involve, implying there would be a very decent Brexit 'deal' whereas in practice the right of the Tory Party drove us to what was in effect a no deal hard Brexit.
And now people can see the damage that's being done and the complete absence of any significant benefit.
Mr. B2, how would you categorise May's attempted exit deal?
'Argentinian leader calls Brazilian president a 'thief' and a 'convict'. President Milei was at a rally for Flavio Bolsonaro, President Lula's opponent in the autumn
Another sobering article on the jobs outlook for young people. One statistic that really jumped out at me was the 88% real terms cut in youth services spending in Dudley since 2011. And yet we can afford the triple lock, apparently. Does a country that is so careless with its young deserve a future?
Yep, it’s not good. I’m depressed by the high quality of several recent unsolicited CVs dropped off with us by youngsters looking for work (it’s a piddly little shop to avoid accusations of humble bragging). I guess the situation is roughly analogous with the 80s without the Bruce bonus of NS oil, and the deprivation less geographically centred.
I know a lot of young folk who are really struggling. I tend to think that they (articulate, well qualified, live in London with supportive families) will be fine in the end, but if they are struggling then those without any of those advantages are probably fucked.
Comments
The kind of plans Brexiteers had ten years ago simply don't add up in today's world.
I don't expect there will be an election until 2029, too many Lab MPs jackets on shoogly pegs and Burnham has a big chunk of the party supporting him right now.
3 years feels a longer time for Farage and Tice to tough it out that it does for Burnham
The Dilnot concept of capping the amount people pay themselves, so that the wealthy contribute but don't have their entire estate bled dry, was always a reasonable compromise.
The other issue for people paying for care is that the way the care home calculates its prices is essentially to work from the total income they need, deduct the amount being paid by council-funded residents, and divide the balance by the number of privately-funded residents. Because the amount per head that councils will fund is essentially fixed (rising with inflation), this means that fluctuations in the number of council-funded residents from one year to the next can have a dramatic effect on the amount charged to the remainder, particularly in homes where the private payers are in the minority (which is common).
Being in favour of the EU was Tory policy for decades and all of a sudden anyone who wasn't a Brexit zealot was not wanted in the party any longer.
It is one of the key reasons why the Tories are crawling along in 3rd place on about 20% of the vote, especially now a clear majority of the electorate believe Brexit was a mistake
You have the mills that take the fees, provide a piece of paper and provide the visa. They are much reduced, but not quite extinct.
But lots of “proper” universities are finding that they had built upon straw.
You have the mills that take the fees, provide a piece of paper and provide the visa. They are much reduced, but not quite extinct.
But lots of “proper” universities are finding that they had built upon straw.
AI will come for a lot of jobs yet, and the NI rise has been a disaster, particularly for hospitality. I can't speak for other parts of the country but around me even some of the successful pubs are on the market. Too much hassle, cant get staff at weekends, whatever it is, peoples lifestyles are changing
* @IanB2 plausibly suggests the social care move is a cynical ploy, which would actually put her in a better light. Nevertheless given she proposes the same for defence funding, this suggests she does actually believe in the magic money savings tree.
As we speak I remain confident that my wallet will remain in cobwebs.
The left and right are fairly evenly split at present and you see that in this discussion
What happens in 2029 is anyone's guess but higher taxes and borrowing are not where the public [voters] are
One personal idea I like, it to merge the "vocational post 18" education system with the "academic" - so your plumber gets a degree. And your poetry grads have to do some practical, like electrical engineering.
Aside from revitalising the university sector, it would breakdown the last big social barrier - between "white collar" and "blue collar"
I was involved in the Maker Space thing for a while - communal workshops. It was fascinating to see the near desperation to do something in The Real from people whose jobs were just playing with Excel all the time. Even just basic woodwork.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-wants-prototype-european-missile-defence-system-by-mid-2027-official-2026-07-27/
We seem to be a participant, but possibly not as far as manufacturing goes ?
Freya (missile system)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freya_(missile_system)#
..a pan-European anti-ballistic missile defense project initiated and led by the Ukrainian defense company Fire Point. It is explicitly designed as an open-architecture "system of systems" that integrates with existing NATO-standard radars, command posts, and data links rather than functioning as a standalone national system. The project’s stated aim is to deliver a lower-cost, higher-volume alternative to the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 for intercepting ballistic missiles, addressing the economic asymmetry Ukraine has faced during the Russo-Ukrainian war when using multimillion-dollar interceptors against cheaper threats. Cost estimates for a successful intercept are around US$700,000 per shot, compared with roughly US$3.8 million for a Patriot missile.
The initial interceptor missile is a light mobile unit produced by Fire Point and will be an extension of the FP-7, called FP-7.x. It is a 7.25 m (24 ft)-long, composite-material missile with a maximum speed of 1,500–2,000 m/s (4,900–6,600 ft/s; Mach 4.4 – Mach 5.9). It uses a semi-active image infrared seeker developed in partnership with Germany’s Diehl Defence (IRIS family). The system is intended to work with a wide range of European radars including the Swedish SAAB Giraffe 8A/4A, French Thales Ground Master 400, German Hensoldt TRML-4D, Danish Weibel GFTR-2100/48, Italian Leonardo KRONOS Land and the Norwegian Kongsberg Fire Direction Centre (FDC) command post. Integration occurs primarily through the NATO-standard Link 16 protocol, with additional open-technology elements such as the ASTERIX protocol for radar connectivity.
The project recycles elements of Soviet-era S-300 technology in the Ukrainian interceptor while building the broader command-and-control and seeker architecture around Western components..
I could help address our complete lack of land based ballistic missile defence.
I believe we will rejoin in about 10 years. Part of the Brexit plan was strong ties with US and that's been blown clear out of the water as I doubt many people will ever want to rely on the US again.
Twin b’s masters had only half the expected people as none of the US students got given visas to attend (given how specialist it was all those people had millionaire parents paying for the fun of it).
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/07/27/social-care-costs-lottery/
Worth reading for the insanity of it
The traditionalists get shocked by the "waste:" of money - sometimes 50% of the work is in the converter systems. I've had some hilarious conversations which go like this
1) We need to replace this legacy system
2) The 3 previous attempts failed - would require years of development to create a new system from scratch, and the projects died.
3) But incremental wastes money.
4) But Big Bang doesn't work
5) But incremental wastes money.
::
repeat forever.
Challenge with AI search results and disinformation.
We want to have our cake and eat it.
And I think less of Badenoch for her kneejerk opposition. She could have said she welcomed progress on an important issue and would work with the government, but wanted to make sure a new system was fair, etc. Instead, she basically asks for the impossible.
So many of that generation of comedians now fading out.
You are a Conservative loyalist.
Let me guess, though... The correction doesn't have the same prominence as the original story.
I'm interested - the tweet seems to hint at sea drones.
I am not sure whether Burnham is also unserious.
The Conservative party used to win as it was the party of realists, not fantasists. If we want fantasists we have Corbyn and Farage already.
I could be tempted to vote Tory if I was absolutely convinced she wouldn't get into bed with Reform after the election and if she adopted a constructive approach with the EU instead of trying to score silly points with Reform voters.
What they need is a smaller and cheaper Patriot missile, for shooting down incoming short and medium range missiles. The existing Patriot is great, but it’s designed for taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, costs a fortune to fire it. Not only that, but there’s a worldwide shortage of them at the moment, and the lead time on each missile is two years.
That everyone has a shortage of Patriots, including the US, UK, EU, NATO, and Gulf States, suggests that a smaller and cheaper version that integrates well will have a huge initial demand.
The Conservatives won 2 election victories post the 2016 vote - including the largest one since the 80s.
The problem isn't Brexit - it is that centristdadism a la Sunak didn't appeal to the electorate, and Farage therefore stole our clothes.
The EUfixation of so many here is baffling to behold. Most people have moved on.....
I suspect that this isn’t just the small air drones, but larger models of land, sea, and air drones, all of which the Ukranians have developed or adapted for the war, and could be licensed or copied by the usual defence industry suspects. The key to the technology is that the hardware is simple and cheap, derived from existing non-military tech, and the hard work is done in software which can be regularly updated.
For example a medium-range air drone looks like a little flying school Cessna, but with extra fuel tanks and a bomb where the seats and instruments would be, while a naval drone is a Ski-Doo or a recreational boat underneath. Cheap and cheerful.
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54117-what-is-the-tactical-voting-landscape-in-february-2026
RIP
What happens if a Minister brings the Care Act 2014 into force? As Dan puts it:
Parliament legislated for a cap on lifetime care costs in the Care Act 2014. Like most legislation, it just needed a minister to make a commencement order to bring the cap into force. Unlike most legislation, no commencement order was ever made.
(We dealt with mum's care by having assets in her name to fund it to avoid family tensions, and then she did not need very much care, and we paid a big chunk - six figures - of IHT. We paid our money and made our choice, but the other way round.)
Burnham has suggested a 10% levy on estates to pay for social care and scrapping inheritance tax and it makes sense for Badenoch and Farage to oppose that as the main gainers would be those with estates over £1 million and their heirs who currently pay 40% inheritance tax over £1 million assets
Farage is (potentially) winning because of his racism. See his response to the atrocity in Germany over the weekend. I am hoping the Tories aren't thinking that is a cunning master plan.
"Labour MP links Berlin Pride attack to rise of Reform
Kate Osborne faces backlash after blaming party for its role in ‘escalation of hate’"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/27/labour-mp-links-berlin-pride-attack-to-rise-of-reform/
She suggested a 5 to 10 year timescale and why it is essential any agreement is cross party so that it survives an election which is probably the most important point
I kind of agree with the principle highlighted, though not personally a huge fan of Private White VC. Their clothes are very good quality but not outstanding. I think they overdo the golden age of empire nostalgia a bit.
Don't know anything about Andy Burnham, but I recognize the room in the middle photo. That's Private White VC.
Let me tell you about them. 🧵
https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/2081500064338620689?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
It (the Freya rocket) won't be state of the art, but it doesn't need to be, and the radar and guidance will be fully modernised.
ETA the article also shows how easily an unwise choice of words can be spun.
Northern Ireland Assembly Voting Intention:
SF: 22% (-2)
UUP: 16% (+3)
DUP: 15% (-3)
SDLP: 13% (+2)
TUV: 12% (+1)
ALL: 10% (-1)
GRN: 5% (=)
AON: 3% (=)
PBP: 2% (=)
Via
@LucidTalk
, July 2026.
Changes w/ 9-12 Apr.
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/2081656238991933887?s=20
Which is stronger to put into Tactical Voting seat generators - “sentiment polling” or actual votes? There is plenty of analysis of the actual votes in recent May 26 that challenges the actual reality of your “sentiment polling” from previous feb 26 doing so much heavy lifting to your argument.
The LSE done analysis which showed right wing block not nearly as effective in tactical voting as left wing block.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/tactical-voting-at-the-local-and-devolved-elections-2026/
Sam Freedman done a piece that right-wing tactical voting doesn’t materialise because is highly contested battle for same seats - many of Reform’s key target seats the Conservatives are already sitting in first or second place, which complicates the logic of Reform voters stepping aside to "tactically" back a Tory candidate. And that’s what Reform leaders and their voters actually done in the real elections May 26, campaigned hard against the Conservatives, as is their very existence depended on it - and doing that in campaign shaped what their voters eventually voted.
https://samf.substack.com/p/how-to-beat-reform
Playing with the tactical vote levels on this page is fun
https://www.pollcheck.co.uk/demographic-swingometer/
but, garbage in garbage out, the most sensible thing to feed into it is what voters are actually doing when choosing councils in the May elections, not sentiment stuff in polling. I reckon the closest thing to replicating next GE we can feed in right now is what happens in May locals, but that’s still a subtly different thing than what goes through voters minds when choosing a government and PM, so still not replicating the next GE. But the May analysis in tactical voting levels on seat generator is still closer than using sentiment polling for the reasons I just gave.
How many times did Sunak go on about stopping the boats and Rwanda, while not actually doing it?
I could see it being, for example, a 10% of estate cap for any individual as one aspect - instead of a flat cap. A Burnham package would not relatively advantage wealthier people more than they are already advantaged.
And now people can see the damage that's being done and the complete absence of any significant benefit.
EDIT: It is entertaining to see how visas from some countries and regions are extremely difficult to obtain. Yet for others, there seems to be no interest in even checking.
This mass ejection event wasn’t on ideology - to neccisate you have to tear up what always made you winners, move your party across the political spectrum with new policies to make you winners again. What Kemi is doing is hasty and stupid.
One of the opening lines is “You say genocide, I said war, when you’re attacked that’s what the army is for”
https://x.com/PolitlcsGlobal/status/2081663100915155406?s=20
https://x.com/BBCWorld/status/2081555309387014157?s=20