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.
Sadly for you in the eye of a majority of beholders Brexit was a mistake
Why for me? I voted remain. I like to think I have an unbiased view of the aftermath. I think that Covid and the Ukraine war has skewed ALL economic outcomes since 2020 and thus its impossible to tell the true effects of leaving. I just believe that the effects are rather minimal, and that lots of those who hate Brexit are using the the cover of the economic effects of Covid/Ukraine to rail against Brexit.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
I use GrapheneOS but I wouldn't be daft enough to give the duress password to US authorities.
Though I thought there was no way to force people to provide a PIN in US law, but you could force them to provide biometrics?
The right way to do this is to have a PIN which opens a second user account with nothing in it. I have a few so that banking apps and anything important aren't normally unocked, but I don't think there's a way to open them direct from the lock screen.
The classic (with Apple) is to have a second Apple Account. You log out of your main one, onto the spare. Everything in the main account is backed up on the Apple Cloud. If they unlock your phone with the spare running, there is no evidence that the other account even exists.
after you pass customs, you log back into the main account, and it downloads all the data.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
I use GrapheneOS but I wouldn't be daft enough to give the duress password to US authorities.
Though I thought there was no way to force people to provide a PIN in US law, but you could force them to provide biometrics?
The right way to do this is to have a PIN which opens a second user account with nothing in it. I have a few so that banking apps and anything important aren't normally unocked, but I don't think there's a way to open them direct from the lock screen.
The classic (with Apple) is to have a second Apple Account. You log out of your main one, onto the spare. Everything in the main account is backed up on the Apple Cloud. If they unlock your phone with the spare running, there is no evidence that the other account even exists.
after you pass customs, you log back into the main account, and it downloads all the data.
I struggle to understand cybercrime reports as it is. If they get any more complicated I may have to give up.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
📰 'Andy Burnham needs to stop talking about Thatcher', according to Rishi Sunak in July 2026.
🗞️ 'I will be the heir to Margaret Thatcher': 'I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite and I will govern as a Thatcherite,' according to Rishi Sunak in July 2022. https://x.com/exPremiers/status/2081304230724239792
It's impossible to avoid speaking about Thatcher. More than any other politician since Atlee she is responsible for the way the country is now (for good or ill). The core of political debate is whether you accept the Thatcher dispensation or you don't.
The Left still hate Thatcher because she pointed out the impracticalities of all they held dear.
Then fixed them.
I'm not at all convinced Burnham hates Thatcher; I certainly don't. But she made an awful lot of mistakes we've never acknowledged.
It's an easy cop out to dismiss criticism as irrational hate.
Let's be genrous and say you are highly unusual on the Left in not blaming the ills of the Universe on Thtacher.
What I heard from Burnham last week didn't suggest he was a paid up member of the Maggie fan club!
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
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.
Sadly for you in the eye of a majority of beholders Brexit was a mistake
Why for me? I voted remain. I like to think I have an unbiased view of the aftermath. I think that Covid and the Ukraine war has skewed ALL economic outcomes since 2020 and thus its impossible to tell the true effects of leaving. I just believe that the effects are rather minimal, and that lots of those who hate Brexit are using the the cover of the economic effects of Covid/Ukraine to rail against Brexit.
Perhaps the strongest indicator that Brexit has been a failure rather than a success is the fact that no other EU country has followed, or appears likely to follow, in our footsteps.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Son of my home city (which I happen to be in this fine morn) deid. I hope the shock of NS oil and gas still being an asset 12 years after 2014 didn’t finish him off..
Son of my home city (which I happen to be in this fine morn) deid. I hope the shock of NS oil and gas still being an asset 12 years after 2014 didn’t finish him off..
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.
Sadly for you in the eye of a majority of beholders Brexit was a mistake
Why for me? I voted remain. I like to think I have an unbiased view of the aftermath. I think that Covid and the Ukraine war has skewed ALL economic outcomes since 2020 and thus its impossible to tell the true effects of leaving. I just believe that the effects are rather minimal, and that lots of those who hate Brexit are using the the cover of the economic effects of Covid/Ukraine to rail against Brexit.
Perhaps the strongest indicator that Brexit has been a failure rather than a success is the fact that no other EU country has followed, or appears likely to follow, in our footsteps.
Maybe, but a brexiteer might argue that (a) we were getting the worst deal and (b) the EU made the process so unbelievably difficult, to encourage the others, Admiral Byng style.
📰 'Andy Burnham needs to stop talking about Thatcher', according to Rishi Sunak in July 2026.
🗞️ 'I will be the heir to Margaret Thatcher': 'I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite and I will govern as a Thatcherite,' according to Rishi Sunak in July 2022. https://x.com/exPremiers/status/2081304230724239792
It's impossible to avoid speaking about Thatcher. More than any other politician since Atlee she is responsible for the way the country is now (for good or ill). The core of political debate is whether you accept the Thatcher dispensation or you don't.
The Left still hate Thatcher because she pointed out the impracticalities of all they held dear.
Then fixed them.
I'm not at all convinced Burnham hates Thatcher; I certainly don't. But she made an awful lot of mistakes we've never acknowledged.
It's an easy cop out to dismiss criticism as irrational hate.
Let's be genrous and say you are highly unusual on the Left in not blaming the ills of the Universe on Thtacher.
What I heard from Burnham last week didn't suggest he was a paid up member of the Maggie fan club!
I think it's perfectly possible to dislike large parts of Thatcher's political and economic legacy without hating the woman herself. For my part I think there was much to admire about Thatcher as well as much to dislike. Moreover, even if you might have thought her prognosis of the UK's problems in the 1970s and her solutions were correct at the time it doesn't imply that the UK's current problems necessarily share the same source or are amenable to the same solutions.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Simple analogy
1) Going into the bank, you put on your Ronald Reagan mask. 2) Rob the place 3) Leave and then take the mask off. 4) Go surfing
Simples
EDIT: Don't give up on cybercrime yet. It's a profitable career, with lots of opportunities.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
I use GrapheneOS but I wouldn't be daft enough to give the duress password to US authorities.
Though I thought there was no way to force people to provide a PIN in US law, but you could force them to provide biometrics?
The right way to do this is to have a PIN which opens a second user account with nothing in it. I have a few so that banking apps and anything important aren't normally unocked, but I don't think there's a way to open them direct from the lock screen. I expect someone will sort this quickly.
You’re correct that forcing disclosure of a PIN is a violation of 1st and 5th amendments, and potentially also the 4th amendment, but those don’t apply at the border even if you’re American.
They can and do leave you in the cell until you comply, no right to an attorney, no right to a phone call…
I’m not expecting the current case to change much the behaviour of US border patrol, who have for the last quarter century acted as a law unto themselves.
Yes, a second profile inside a sandbox makes much more sense as a duress code.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
I am always happy and full of the joys of life Al
is that "I am always happy and full of the joys of life Al" or "I am always happy and full of the joys of life AI"
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.
Johnson won his huge majority when people still believed that Brexit was leading to the sunlit uplands. Once that illusion was dead and buried with a stake through its heart the Tories crashed to their worst defeat in decades. Sunak was a Brexiteer by the way. The Tory party own Brexit I'm afraid and by huge margins voters now believe it was a mistake.
I am quite happy for the conservative party to own brexit even though I voted remain
It is not perfect, but I do not want UVL speaking for me rather than our PM whoever that is
UVL is a Conservative. Burnham isn't.
I do not care what she is - I cannot elect her
This one has always puzzled me. For the U.K. Prime Minister you vote for an MP and the balance of MPs in the new Parliament determines who is appointed PM (based on the party leaders known at the time of the election) by the King and that appointment is subject to confirmation through a vote on the King’s Speech. For the President of the European Commission you voted for an MEP and the balance of MEPs in the new Parliament determines who is nominated as President (candidates for the various blocs having been known at the time of the election) and subject to confirmation in a vote of MEPs. What’s the substantive difference other than foreigners being involved?
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
I use GrapheneOS but I wouldn't be daft enough to give the duress password to US authorities.
Though I thought there was no way to force people to provide a PIN in US law, but you could force them to provide biometrics?
The right way to do this is to have a PIN which opens a second user account with nothing in it. I have a few so that banking apps and anything important aren't normally unocked, but I don't think there's a way to open them direct from the lock screen.
The classic (with Apple) is to have a second Apple Account. You log out of your main one, onto the spare. Everything in the main account is backed up on the Apple Cloud. If they unlock your phone with the spare running, there is no evidence that the other account even exists.
after you pass customs, you log back into the main account, and it downloads all the data.
I struggle to understand cybercrime reports as it is. If they get any more complicated I may have to give up.
The Apple trick is easy. The full backup of the phone is in ‘the cloud’ (on Apple’s servers).
So you cross the border with an almost blank phone, plausible enough not to be too suspicious, logged in with a second account; then once you’re through the border, you wipe the phone and log into the real account, and download all your stuff from the cloud.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
It is really something we should be aiming for, though.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
Is it ridiculous? Look back on human progress over the last say 200 years. I'd argue that over most peoples lifetimes things have got better.
GRAHAM: “We’ve done it — I almost cried. We’ve been pushing this for years… Trump loves blowing stuff up.”
WSJ releases a new doc showing dead Republican Senator Lindsey Graham laughing that he helped Bibi convince Trump to attack Iran and get us into another deadly costly war.. https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/2081569043144646752
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
Is it ridiculous? Look back on human progress over the last say 200 years. I'd argue that over most peoples lifetimes things have got better.
Well, yes, but arguably that was anomalous - arguably the quality of human life was surprisingly unimproved between, say, 0 and 1500 AD.
And even during the last 200 years it hasn't been a linear improvement.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
Sure, progress doesn't run in straight lines.
That's not the nub of generational politics, though. What seems to upset younger people is them seeing/believing of us at the older end of the scale determinedly protecting our lifestyles at their expense.
You can argue to what extent that's true, but your comment sidesteps the issue.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
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.
Johnson won his huge majority when people still believed that Brexit was leading to the sunlit uplands. Once that illusion was dead and buried with a stake through its heart the Tories crashed to their worst defeat in decades. Sunak was a Brexiteer by the way. The Tory party own Brexit I'm afraid and by huge margins voters now believe it was a mistake.
I am quite happy for the conservative party to own brexit even though I voted remain
It is not perfect, but I do not want UVL speaking for me rather than our PM whoever that is
UVL is a Conservative. Burnham isn't.
I do not care what she is - I cannot elect her
This one has always puzzled me. For the U.K. Prime Minister you vote for an MP and the balance of MPs in the new Parliament determines who is appointed PM (based on the party leaders known at the time of the election) by the King and that appointment is subject to confirmation through a vote on the King’s Speech. For the President of the European Commission you voted for an MEP and the balance of MEPs in the new Parliament determines who is nominated as President (candidates for the various blocs having been known at the time of the election) and subject to confirmation in a vote of MEPs. What’s the substantive difference other than foreigners being involved?
Demos, a sense of belonging.
The prevailing view of many, a majority even, in the UK is that the EU was ‘done to’ to UK, rather than the UK being involved in it, and that much EU legislation was opposed by the UK electorate but not by the political class, who were happy to deflect the ‘blame’ onto the EU rather than themselves.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
You've only just realised this about Mr Boobs!
Well no, I've always thought that but I am trying to explain the decline in green numbers...
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
Is it ridiculous? Look back on human progress over the last say 200 years. I'd argue that over most peoples lifetimes things have got better.
Well, yes, but arguably that was anomalous - arguably the quality of human life was surprisingly unimproved between, say, 0 and 1500 AD.
And even during the last 200 years it hasn't been a linear improvement.
I think I was looking at the scale wrongly 37% of Canadians think the US is a global threat to peace which seems pretty fair . I’m surprised it wasn’t more !
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
I don't think it's in any way ridiculous. We have all the knowledge of previous generations - we stand on their shoulders. Unless something is going very wong, everything should be improving.
I am now going to have to rewatch it - something I've not done since 1979.
For Moonraker (1979), Stuntman Richard Graydon nearly died while hanging from a cable car 2,000 feet above Rio de Janeiro, without a safety line, because he didn’t want to appear rude.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
You've only just realised this about Mr Boobs!
Well no, I've always thought that but I am trying to explain the decline in green numbers...
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
You've only just realised this about Mr Boobs!
Well no, I've always thought that but I am trying to explain the decline in green numbers...
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
You've only just realised this about Mr Boobs!
Well no, I've always thought that but I am trying to explain the decline in green numbers...
I must say that we've an excellent Green County Councillor. He's also a District Councillor for a neighbouring ward and he does a pretty good job there, too.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
Sorry but what Kemi has done is has nothing to do with whether one 'wants green policies' or not. Claiming that our current disastrous transition trajectory must be followed is the ultimate in 'we must do something', 'this is something', 'let's do 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.
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.
It does in Tory held seats, the Tories do get tactical votes to beat Reform or from Reform to beat Labour. Reform don't get many tactical votes though even from Tories
But I have just posted analysis from the May elections which say otherwise 🤦♀️
You are not agreeing the actual votes following campaigns where Reform went in two footed on the Conservatives, trumps the sentiment polling from before actual campaigns and elections 🤷♀️
There is no possible Tory and Reform electoral cohabitating. 1983 election result is an actual reference point as well as 2024.
One of the two parties has to go to “nothing status” - and on basis there’s but a lowish polling ceiling Reform can ever achieve - and same lowish ceiling for Reform in GE parliament seats because they are so far from centre and without any history of governing well or managing an economy well - all right wing support and votes to reform is now an utter waste of time, it’s actually hampering taking the fight to the left - who are just sat there laughing at us when we talk electoral cohabiting on the right.
Elections are won and government defended from the centre - two parties away to the two right of centre polling about the same at the same time, and going in hard on each other during campaigns… how on earth do you have tactical vote working?
The only thing for Conservative Party, their friends in media and donors need to focus on, the only way forward for the Conservatives, is eradication of Reform back to “nothing” status they were just a few years ago when Truss entered Number ten.
No you didn't'There is no sign of a tactical squeeze on the Liberal Democrat or Green vote in the wards Labour were defending against a strong Reform challenge; while the Greens did underperform their national average in wards Labour were defending and Reform came first or second, that is not evidence for Green to Labour tactical voting because it can be accounted for by the more general tendency of Greens to do less well in less urban and more Leave voting places.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
I don't think it's in any way ridiculous. We have all the knowledge of previous generations - we stand on their shoulders. Unless something is going very wrong, everything should be improving.
Imagine you were born at the start of the 20th Century, the start of a hitherto unparalleled period of scientific and industrial development...
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
Well there are possible reasons. My dad retired at 57, thirty years ago. He has lived, for all the time, in the detached four bed house that he owns outright. He takes home around 5 grand a month in various pensions (state plus police, mainly), He has had, until he lost my mum a couple of years ago, two foreign holidays a year.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
The fact that life doesn't always get better over time isn't a reason to be grumpy. In fact, it's slightly ridiculous to expect that it always should do.
Sure, progress doesn't run in straight lines.
That's not the nub of generational politics, though. What seems to upset younger people is them seeing/believing of us at the older end of the scale determinedly protecting our lifestyles at their expense.
You can argue to what extent that's true, but your comment sidesteps the issue.
Being a little glib but... the whole Osbournian experiment was delivered at the expense of the young and the youngish. It was 10+ years of nibbling bits of the welfare state that support the working age population. And we wonder why increasing proportions of the young are depressed, anxious, low skilled, low paid or on the sick.
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.
Johnson won his huge majority when people still believed that Brexit was leading to the sunlit uplands. Once that illusion was dead and buried with a stake through its heart the Tories crashed to their worst defeat in decades. Sunak was a Brexiteer by the way. The Tory party own Brexit I'm afraid and by huge margins voters now believe it was a mistake.
I am quite happy for the conservative party to own brexit even though I voted remain
It is not perfect, but I do not want UVL speaking for me rather than our PM whoever that is
GRAHAM: “We’ve done it — I almost cried. We’ve been pushing this for years… Trump loves blowing stuff up.”
WSJ releases a new doc showing dead Republican Senator Lindsey Graham laughing that he helped Bibi convince Trump to attack Iran and get us into another deadly costly war.. https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/2081569043144646752
What an unredeemed piece of shit he was. No wonder the GRU killed him.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
Sorry but what Kemi has done is has nothing to do with whether one 'wants green policies' or not. Claiming that our current disastrous transition trajectory must be followed is the ultimate in 'we must do something', 'this is something', 'let's do it'.
Your comments does not match mine. I think Badenoch is being stupid as she should be aiming to broaden the appeal of her party, not restrict it to only people who reject net zero. If you are not in power you have no power to do anything.
And I think we should be exploiting our own resources on the way to a better world. Its insane to close down our North sea reserves and then buy from Norway. But that doesn't make Badenoch somehow right to shrink the available Tory pool even further.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
The split on the right is really helping Burnham now with FPTP.
Tories and Reform combined 6% ahead of Labour and LDs combined on votes but Labour most seats on this poll on 300 and with the 69 LD MPs would be a comfortable Labour and LD combined majority.
Reform and Tories now neck and neck on MPs, Reform 119 and Tories 116
I know things are different but I suspect the LD's will be very wary of a coalition. Davey and Farron in particular.
Most likely would be a Labour minority government I agree on those numbers
I'm not so sure. LDs were twice as favourable to a Labour coalition as with the Tories on a January YouGov poll. So, it would depend on the offer. Burnham has already said he's in favour of PR. That's probably the clincher
On today's MoreinCommon Labour would win 300 MPs with FPTP but only 182 MPs with PR.
I expect Burnham's enthusiasm for PR will rapidly declide, indeed both the Tories and Reform would win more seats with PR than under FPTP on today's MiC poll
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.
Johnson won his huge majority when people still believed that Brexit was leading to the sunlit uplands. Once that illusion was dead and buried with a stake through its heart the Tories crashed to their worst defeat in decades. Sunak was a Brexiteer by the way. The Tory party own Brexit I'm afraid and by huge margins voters now believe it was a mistake.
I am quite happy for the conservative party to own brexit even though I voted remain
It is not perfect, but I do not want UVL speaking for me rather than our PM whoever that is
Why did you vote remain then?
It's what the loyal Conservatives were doing at the time.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
The split on the right is really helping Burnham now with FPTP.
Tories and Reform combined 6% ahead of Labour and LDs combined on votes but Labour most seats on this poll on 300 and with the 69 LD MPs would be a comfortable Labour and LD combined majority.
Reform and Tories now neck and neck on MPs, Reform 119 and Tories 116 but each projected less than half the Labour seats despite being only 4% and 6% behind Labour on voteshare
Labour could comfortably form a working coalition with the Lib Dems, or Greens or SNP/Plaid.
The Tories could not comfortably form a working coalition with Reform or anybody else.
Therein lies the Tories problem in a nutshell
Labour could comfortably form a coalition with the LDs but not with the Greens and even less so with the SNP/Plaid, the latter would just be deals of holding noses to keep out Reform and the Tories
📰 'Andy Burnham needs to stop talking about Thatcher', according to Rishi Sunak in July 2026.
🗞️ 'I will be the heir to Margaret Thatcher': 'I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite and I will govern as a Thatcherite,' according to Rishi Sunak in July 2022. https://x.com/exPremiers/status/2081304230724239792
It's impossible to avoid speaking about Thatcher. More than any other politician since Atlee she is responsible for the way the country is now (for good or ill). The core of political debate is whether you accept the Thatcher dispensation or you don't.
The Left still hate Thatcher because she pointed out the impracticalities of all they held dear.
Then fixed them.
I'm not at all convinced Burnham hates Thatcher; I certainly don't. But she made an awful lot of mistakes we've never acknowledged.
It's an easy cop out to dismiss criticism as irrational hate.
Let's be genrous and say you are highly unusual on the Left in not blaming the ills of the Universe on Thtacher.
What I heard from Burnham last week didn't suggest he was a paid up member of the Maggie fan club!
I think it's perfectly possible to dislike large parts of Thatcher's political and economic legacy without hating the woman herself. For my part I think there was much to admire about Thatcher as well as much to dislike. Moreover, even if you might have thought her prognosis of the UK's problems in the 1970s and her solutions were correct at the time it doesn't imply that the UK's current problems necessarily share the same source or are amenable to the same solutions.
The more you read up on macroeconomic policy through that era (for example cf. the tyranny of nostalgia) the more you realise that that Tory government didn’t understand what it was doing, and insofar as it didn’t, didn’t care about the consequences. They inherited some favourable winds - notably, North Sea Oil - but rather than exercise the wisdom of the Norwegians, didn’t invest this but instead blew it on tax cuts for the rich. There were undoubtedly some issues outstanding from the 1970s that were resolved by the Thatcher government’s blunt instruments, but in the round they left us with the poisoned chalice with which we now struggle. With hindsight, Blair should have been braver in recognising her toxic legacy rather than seeking to absorb and build upon it.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
Sorry but what Kemi has done is has nothing to do with whether one 'wants green policies' or not. Claiming that our current disastrous transition trajectory must be followed is the ultimate in 'we must do something', 'this is something', 'let's do it'.
Your comments does not match mine. I think Badenoch is being stupid as she should be aiming to broaden the appeal of her party, not restrict it to only people who reject net zero. If you are not in power you have no power to do anything.
And I think we should be exploiting our own resources on the way to a better world. Its insane to close down our North sea reserves and then buy from Norway. But that doesn't make Badenoch somehow right to shrink the available Tory pool even further.
Yes, I agree. There is a perfectly good nuanced position along the lines of: it is in the interests of both the world and the UK for the UK to move towards Net Zero, and we intend to do so - but there will be cases, such as that of North Sea oil, where the move towards Net Zero needs to be balanced by other considerations.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
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.
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.
Sadly for you in the eye of a majority of beholders Brexit was a mistake
Why for me? I voted remain. I like to think I have an unbiased view of the aftermath. I think that Covid and the Ukraine war has skewed ALL economic outcomes since 2020 and thus its impossible to tell the true effects of leaving. I just believe that the effects are rather minimal, and that lots of those who hate Brexit are using the the cover of the economic effects of Covid/Ukraine to rail against Brexit.
I think COVID and Ukraine have, indeed, had huge economic effects. Certainly bigger than Brexit in the short term. Which makes it difficult to tease out what was a Brexit effect.
But I think COVID (and less so Ukraine) also spared the Tory government from endless coverage over every bit of Brexit going wrong.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
Another trick I learned at the US border is when the Border Control Officer asks you
‘Do you have any weapons?’
Do not reply with
‘Why, what do you need?’
And when going through Australian passport control and they ask:
“Do you have a criminal record?”
Do not reply with:
“I didn’t realise that was still a requirement”.
How old is that joke?
Probably dates from 1915 when they first introduced passport control on entry.
In the days, around fifty years ago, when one could have a 'family passport'; husband and wife and under-age children on the same document, my wife and I visited Australia. The (female) immigration officer was quite rough with my wife; why didn't she have her own passport, was she ruled by me, walk two steps behind me and so on. Then the rules changed and we each needed our own, so that the next time we went Down Under all was well.
"The Jodrell Bank Observatory, which has housed the UK's largest telescope for nearly 70 years, has lost its funding and could now close, the BBC understands.
The observatory and its network of telescopes have been pivotal to the country's study of distant galaxies and training future astronomers. Scientists have described the decision as "heartbreaking" and "scientifically misguided".
All scientific observations at Jodrell are expected to cease on the 1 April 2028 unless alternative funding can be found."
Joddrell Bank is brilliant. It's a really interesting museum on the subject of space; and how we know about itl and on the subject of Jodrell Bank itself; but the best thing there is the dish. I could look at it for hours. It is the most compelling man-made thing in the North West of England. It always brings a little frisson of joy to see it from the train or from up a hill in the western Peak District or a high building in Manchester. I also love that it maintains an air of makeshift post-war optimism: some of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century have taken place in those unassuming little blocks which looks like makeshift extra classrooms.
I'd urge absolutely everyone on here to visit it while they still have the chance.
📰 'Andy Burnham needs to stop talking about Thatcher', according to Rishi Sunak in July 2026.
🗞️ 'I will be the heir to Margaret Thatcher': 'I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite and I will govern as a Thatcherite,' according to Rishi Sunak in July 2022. https://x.com/exPremiers/status/2081304230724239792
It's impossible to avoid speaking about Thatcher. More than any other politician since Atlee she is responsible for the way the country is now (for good or ill). The core of political debate is whether you accept the Thatcher dispensation or you don't.
The Left still hate Thatcher because she pointed out the impracticalities of all they held dear.
Then fixed them.
I'm not at all convinced Burnham hates Thatcher; I certainly don't. But she made an awful lot of mistakes we've never acknowledged.
It's an easy cop out to dismiss criticism as irrational hate.
Let's be genrous and say you are highly unusual on the Left in not blaming the ills of the Universe on Thtacher.
What I heard from Burnham last week didn't suggest he was a paid up member of the Maggie fan club!
I think it's perfectly possible to dislike large parts of Thatcher's political and economic legacy without hating the woman herself. For my part I think there was much to admire about Thatcher as well as much to dislike. Moreover, even if you might have thought her prognosis of the UK's problems in the 1970s and her solutions were correct at the time it doesn't imply that the UK's current problems necessarily share the same source or are amenable to the same solutions.
The more you read up on macroeconomic policy through that era (for example cf. the tyranny of nostalgia) the more you realise that that Tory government didn’t understand what it was doing, and insofar as it didn’t, didn’t care about the consequences. They inherited some favourable winds - notably, North Sea Oil - but rather than exercise the wisdom of the Norwegians, didn’t invest this but instead blew it on tax cuts for the rich. There were undoubtedly some issues outstanding from the 1970s that were resolved by the Thatcher government’s blunt instruments, but in the round they left us with the poisoned chalice with which we now struggle. With hindsight, Blair should have been braver in recognising her toxic legacy rather than seeking to absorb and build upon it.
Why would he? By 1997 the UK had low inflation, low unemployment, few strikes and strong growth. Foot and Kinnock twice had both been defeated strongly opposing Thatcherism so Blair had to accept much of it.
Even now Burnham's repudiating Thatcherism still only gets Labour to 28% at best, with the divide on the Thatcherite right between Tories and Reform gifting Labour a poll lead
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
Another trick I learned at the US border is when the Border Control Officer asks you
‘Do you have any weapons?’
Do not reply with
‘Why, what do you need?’
And when going through Australian passport control and they ask:
“Do you have a criminal record?”
Do not reply with:
“I didn’t realise that was still a requirement”.
How old is that joke?
Probably dates from 1915 when they first introduced passport control on entry.
In the days, around fifty years ago, when one could have a 'family passport'; husband and wife and under-age children on the same document, my wife and I visited Australia. The (female) immigration officer was quite rough with my wife; why didn't she have her own passport, was she ruled by me, walk two steps behind me and so on. Then the rules changed and we each needed our own, so that the next time we went Down Under all was well.
I had a diplomatic passport courtesy of my father's various postings until I was 18. It was a fucking rude awakening to discover how normal people had to negotiate airports, I'll tell you that...
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.
📰 'Andy Burnham needs to stop talking about Thatcher', according to Rishi Sunak in July 2026.
🗞️ 'I will be the heir to Margaret Thatcher': 'I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite and I will govern as a Thatcherite,' according to Rishi Sunak in July 2022. https://x.com/exPremiers/status/2081304230724239792
It's impossible to avoid speaking about Thatcher. More than any other politician since Atlee she is responsible for the way the country is now (for good or ill). The core of political debate is whether you accept the Thatcher dispensation or you don't.
It's incredibly easy to not speak about Thatcher (positively or negatively), and July 2026 Sunak is absolutely correct.
Let's say it is true that the core political debate of this country is still around some kind of Thatcherite consensus or reaction against it, it still wouldn't be sensible to go on about Thatcher, because she left office over 30 years ago and most people are not thinking about ongoing legacy impacts, and where they are you need to tie it into modern perceptions not make everyone think it is ancient history of the 80s.
Bringing Thatcher into the mix is just some weird Boomerist and Gen X legacy on our political language that we need to get away from as it is done to excite the politically obsessed but just bores or baffles anyone who gained the right to vote since the turn of the millennium, unless that person is particularly engaged in politics and wants to get into deep analysis and discussion around the way things are - which the average voter doesn't.
That's why usually people talk about breaking consensus or doing new things etc, without getting specific on who, because that level of detail is not needed.
📰 'Andy Burnham needs to stop talking about Thatcher', according to Rishi Sunak in July 2026.
🗞️ 'I will be the heir to Margaret Thatcher': 'I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite and I will govern as a Thatcherite,' according to Rishi Sunak in July 2022. https://x.com/exPremiers/status/2081304230724239792
It's impossible to avoid speaking about Thatcher. More than any other politician since Atlee she is responsible for the way the country is now (for good or ill). The core of political debate is whether you accept the Thatcher dispensation or you don't.
The Left still hate Thatcher because she pointed out the impracticalities of all they held dear.
Then fixed them.
I'm not at all convinced Burnham hates Thatcher; I certainly don't. But she made an awful lot of mistakes we've never acknowledged.
It's an easy cop out to dismiss criticism as irrational hate.
Let's be genrous and say you are highly unusual on the Left in not blaming the ills of the Universe on Thtacher.
What I heard from Burnham last week didn't suggest he was a paid up member of the Maggie fan club!
I think it's perfectly possible to dislike large parts of Thatcher's political and economic legacy without hating the woman herself. For my part I think there was much to admire about Thatcher as well as much to dislike. Moreover, even if you might have thought her prognosis of the UK's problems in the 1970s and her solutions were correct at the time it doesn't imply that the UK's current problems necessarily share the same source or are amenable to the same solutions.
The more you read up on macroeconomic policy through that era (for example cf. the tyranny of nostalgia) the more you realise that that Tory government didn’t understand what it was doing, and insofar as it didn’t, didn’t care about the consequences. They inherited some favourable winds - notably, North Sea Oil - but rather than exercise the wisdom of the Norwegians, didn’t invest this but instead blew it on tax cuts for the rich. There were undoubtedly some issues outstanding from the 1970s that were resolved by the Thatcher government’s blunt instruments, but in the round they left us with the poisoned chalice with which we now struggle. With hindsight, Blair should have been braver in recognising her toxic legacy rather than seeking to absorb and build upon it.
Why would he? By 1997 the UK had low inflation, low unemployment, few strikes and strong growth. Foot and Kinnock twice had both been defeated strongly opposing Thatcherism so Blair had to accept much of it.
Even now Burnham's repudiating Thatcherism still only gets Labour to 28% at best, with the divide on the Thatcherite right between Tories and Reform gifting Labour a poll lead
Isn't the term 'Thatcherism' being used as cover for imprecision of thought? Which bits, what policies, which outcomes, what alternatives, how best to deal next with what might be a better discussion.
Mrs T, like all PMs from Attlee was implementing post WWII social democracy in a particular way significant for the times, and imperfectly. Burnham suggests (and no-one suggests) serious derogation from social democracy. He is neither a socialist nor a libertarian.
There are, it seems to me two deep questions: Is the social democrat deal of 1945 and onwards deliverable in any form?
If it is, then how. If it isn't, what would be the next national deal after the last 80 years.
Burnham's answer is obvious: continue and extend the social democratic deal; evidence - his concern for social care as a function of the state.
"The Jodrell Bank Observatory, which has housed the UK's largest telescope for nearly 70 years, has lost its funding and could now close, the BBC understands.
The observatory and its network of telescopes have been pivotal to the country's study of distant galaxies and training future astronomers. Scientists have described the decision as "heartbreaking" and "scientifically misguided".
All scientific observations at Jodrell are expected to cease on the 1 April 2028 unless alternative funding can be found."
Joddrell Bank is brilliant. It's a really interesting museum on the subject of space; and how we know about itl and on the subject of Jodrell Bank itself; but the best thing there is the dish. I could look at it for hours. It is the most compelling man-made thing in the North West of England. It always brings a little frisson of joy to see it from the train or from up a hill in the western Peak District or a high building in Manchester. I also love that it maintains an air of makeshift post-war optimism: some of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century have taken place in those unassuming little blocks which looks like makeshift extra classrooms.
I'd urge absolutely everyone on here to visit it while they still have the chance.
It's for a very small saving.
£3m a year apparently, which seems both an unnecessary cut and a project ripe for private investment.
Putin visited Irkutsk recently and the fuel stations changed their prices while he was in town so that the dear leader wouldn't be confronted with the reality hidden by Rosstat's imaginary inflation statistics.
This sort of thing will prolong the war, because Putin won't know how badly Russia is doing.
Putin visited Irkutsk recently and the fuel stations changed their prices while he was in town so that the dear leader wouldn't be confronted with the reality hidden by Rosstat's imaginary inflation statistics.
This sort of thing will prolong the war, because Putin won't know how badly Russia is doing.
I doubt he's completely clueless that things have been harder than he would like, but it does seem the case that there are still the incentives in such an authoritarian regime to hiding the truth from your bosses.
Reminds me of when Hong Kong held parish elections which went very badly for Beijing, and reports were they had genuinely been surprised as they had believed their own propaganda about how things would be fine.
Unfortunately they l earned their lesson and made sure to clamp down much much harder in the following years at legislative elections and other laws.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
Another trick I learned at the US border is when the Border Control Officer asks you
‘Do you have any weapons?’
Do not reply with
‘Why, what do you need?’
And when going through Australian passport control and they ask:
“Do you have a criminal record?”
Do not reply with:
“I didn’t realise that was still a requirement”.
How old is that joke?
Probably dates from 1915 when they first introduced passport control on entry.
In the days, around fifty years ago, when one could have a 'family passport'; husband and wife and under-age children on the same document, my wife and I visited Australia. The (female) immigration officer was quite rough with my wife; why didn't she have her own passport, was she ruled by me, walk two steps behind me and so on. Then the rules changed and we each needed our own, so that the next time we went Down Under all was well.
I had a diplomatic passport courtesy of my father's various postings until I was 18. It was a fucking rude awakening to discover how normal people had to negotiate airports, I'll tell you that...
My Mum was a well-known and beloved GP. It was a rude awakening to have to negotiate healthcare after she retired.
Putin visited Irkutsk recently and the fuel stations changed their prices while he was in town so that the dear leader wouldn't be confronted with the reality hidden by Rosstat's imaginary inflation statistics.
This sort of thing will prolong the war, because Putin won't know how badly Russia is doing.
📰 'Andy Burnham needs to stop talking about Thatcher', according to Rishi Sunak in July 2026.
🗞️ 'I will be the heir to Margaret Thatcher': 'I am a Thatcherite, I am running as a Thatcherite and I will govern as a Thatcherite,' according to Rishi Sunak in July 2022. https://x.com/exPremiers/status/2081304230724239792
It's impossible to avoid speaking about Thatcher. More than any other politician since Atlee she is responsible for the way the country is now (for good or ill). The core of political debate is whether you accept the Thatcher dispensation or you don't.
The Left still hate Thatcher because she pointed out the impracticalities of all they held dear.
Then fixed them.
I'm not at all convinced Burnham hates Thatcher; I certainly don't. But she made an awful lot of mistakes we've never acknowledged.
It's an easy cop out to dismiss criticism as irrational hate.
Let's be genrous and say you are highly unusual on the Left in not blaming the ills of the Universe on Thtacher.
What I heard from Burnham last week didn't suggest he was a paid up member of the Maggie fan club!
I think it's perfectly possible to dislike large parts of Thatcher's political and economic legacy without hating the woman herself. For my part I think there was much to admire about Thatcher as well as much to dislike. Moreover, even if you might have thought her prognosis of the UK's problems in the 1970s and her solutions were correct at the time it doesn't imply that the UK's current problems necessarily share the same source or are amenable to the same solutions.
The more you read up on macroeconomic policy through that era (for example cf. the tyranny of nostalgia) the more you realise that that Tory government didn’t understand what it was doing, and insofar as it didn’t, didn’t care about the consequences. They inherited some favourable winds - notably, North Sea Oil - but rather than exercise the wisdom of the Norwegians, didn’t invest this but instead blew it on tax cuts for the rich. There were undoubtedly some issues outstanding from the 1970s that were resolved by the Thatcher government’s blunt instruments, but in the round they left us with the poisoned chalice with which we now struggle. With hindsight, Blair should have been braver in recognising her toxic legacy rather than seeking to absorb and build upon it.
Why would he? By 1997 the UK had low inflation, low unemployment, few strikes and strong growth. Foot and Kinnock twice had both been defeated strongly opposing Thatcherism so Blair had to accept much of it.
Even now Burnham's repudiating Thatcherism still only gets Labour to 28% at best, with the divide on the Thatcherite right between Tories and Reform gifting Labour a poll lead
Isn't the term 'Thatcherism' being used as cover for imprecision of thought? Which bits, what policies, which outcomes, what alternatives, how best to deal next with what might be a better discussion.
Mrs T, like all PMs from Attlee was implementing post WWII social democracy in a particular way significant for the times, and imperfectly. Burnham suggests (and no-one suggests) serious derogation from social democracy. He is neither a socialist nor a libertarian.
There are, it seems to me two deep questions: Is the social democrat deal of 1945 and onwards deliverable in any form?
If it is, then how. If it isn't, what would be the next national deal after the last 80 years.
Burnham's answer is obvious: continue and extend the social democratic deal; evidence - his concern for social care as a function of the state.
Thatcher was the furthest we have got to a capitalist government and away from social democracy though post WW2, she left a top income tax rate cut to 40%, lots of industries privatised from BT to BA and British Gas. Spending as a percentage of gdp was also just 34% in 1989 and 35% when she left office in 1990.
The New Labour government of 1997-2001 was ironically the second most capitalist and least social democrat, Blair spent even less than the Major government in his first term
The worst President in American history and the worst man to be President in American history.
No one will live up the legacy of William Henry Harrison, who could definitively state he left the country in just as good a state as it was when he took up office.
First known US case: American charged for using a “duress” password
Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta resident, is being prosecuted for allegedly giving border agents a passcode that wiped his phone.
The feature comes from GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused Android OS. Entering the duress code triggers a full factory reset.
This is believed to be the first time federal prosecutors have brought such charges.
The incident happened in January 2025 at Atlanta airport. Agents demanded access to his phone without a warrant, saying he hadn’t yet officially entered the US. When they entered the code, the phone wiped itself.
Tunick has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the seizure was unlawful and that agents were investigating his activism against “Cop City.”
Just take a blank phone and laptop across borders, especially if you may be “of interest” to the countries you’re visiting.
The US Supreme Court decided some time ago, not long after 9/11, that the Constitution doesn’t apply at the US border.
Another trick I learned at the US border is when the Border Control Officer asks you
‘Do you have any weapons?’
Do not reply with
‘Why, what do you need?’
And when going through Australian passport control and they ask:
“Do you have a criminal record?”
Do not reply with:
“I didn’t realise that was still a requirement”.
How old is that joke?
Probably dates from 1915 when they first introduced passport control on entry.
In the days, around fifty years ago, when one could have a 'family passport'; husband and wife and under-age children on the same document, my wife and I visited Australia. The (female) immigration officer was quite rough with my wife; why didn't she have her own passport, was she ruled by me, walk two steps behind me and so on. Then the rules changed and we each needed our own, so that the next time we went Down Under all was well.
I had a diplomatic passport courtesy of my father's various postings until I was 18. It was a fucking rude awakening to discover how normal people had to negotiate airports, I'll tell you that...
And you've never got used to the idea of customs...
Compare and contrast C5 Boris Johnson documentary 'Into Ukraine’s kill zone' with Andy Burnham's latest social media influencer PR campaign to highlight his local man from Manchester where he plans to hold forth with a No10 of the North at great added cost to taxpayer and make his Cabinet turn up there on a Friday when they should be in London working as Ministers or doing their other day job as MPs in their own constituencies across UK!
Andy Burnham will host President Zelensky at No10, with him portraying himself as a local Manchester lad and DJ as the former actor and comedian Zelensky had a crash course on becoming a President in a now war torn country invaded by Russia for a second time and is leading that country which is now been under constant daily attack since then with whole cities which have been decimated by that invasion.
Now I was no a fan of Boris Johnson and I didn't vote for him in the Conservative leadership contest, but to give him credit for his biggest legacy and that was his unconditional support before and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He took all the right decisions when he realised due to UK intelligence that there was going to be an imminent invasion of Ukraine by Russia and he instigated some incredible vital military support in the run up to the invasion.
I followed flightrader24 closely in the six weeks leading up to the invasion and I noted the constant RAF flights in and out of Kyiv in the build up to the invasion where we made a real effort to support Ukraine's build up of their defences while too many of our European neighbours were caught napping and didn't believe it would happen so didn't do nearly enough to step up and support them at that time. But on this occasion both US and UK military intelligence called it right when other EU/NATO countries got it wrong.
I am going to make a prediction, Burnham won't win the next GE for the Labour party and for the simple fact that the UK economy will implode domestically and neither he or his government will turn out to be fit for purpose to deal with either the domestic or the global issues we currently face and in large part it will be due to dissent on his backbenches no matter how big the Labour majority is as Westminster, Starmer has already learnt the hard way!
Both Johnson and Burnham are quirky maverick politicians who were too quick in rewarding their supporters with key Cabinet posts due to loyalty rather than merit, but when the going gets tough even with a large majority it will be interesting to see if Burnham gets the chance to make the right call on the timing of the next GE. He can't make big changes to last Labour manifesto without calling another GE to get his own mandate to do this. If he thinks the large majority of MPs he inherited are going to be like herding cats, that is going to be nothing compared to trying to herd the current disgruntled electorate in the direction of voting for another Labour majority if he gets badly wrong.
Putin visited Irkutsk recently and the fuel stations changed their prices while he was in town so that the dear leader wouldn't be confronted with the reality hidden by Rosstat's imaginary inflation statistics.
This sort of thing will prolong the war, because Putin won't know how badly Russia is doing.
Or it will shorten the war, as the protests start to get going when there’s no fuel for heating in the winter and he’s not prepared for it.
Most Soviet-era apartment blocks have central heating for the whole block, with an oil-burner in the basement. If the oil doesn’t arrive in the autumn…
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.
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?
The interesting thing is politicians still talk a lot about looking after young people, even as we put more and more into those lucrative reliable voters at the upper age brackets. Not just a matter of money either, a lot of things are simply orientated around not upsetting grumpy old people (without wishing to get into another NIMBY discussion).
Going by the whining on here it is the young that are the grumpy ones
Brilliant - you accusing others of being grumpy.
I am always happy and full of the joys of life Al
is that "I am always happy and full of the joys of life Al" or "I am always happy and full of the joys of life AI"
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
Sorry but what Kemi has done is has nothing to do with whether one 'wants green policies' or not. Claiming that our current disastrous transition trajectory must be followed is the ultimate in 'we must do something', 'this is something', 'let's do it'.
Your comments does not match mine. I think Badenoch is being stupid as she should be aiming to broaden the appeal of her party, not restrict it to only people who reject net zero. If you are not in power you have no power to do anything.
And I think we should be exploiting our own resources on the way to a better world. Its insane to close down our North sea reserves and then buy from Norway. But that doesn't make Badenoch somehow right to shrink the available Tory pool even further.
Yes, I agree. There is a perfectly good nuanced position along the lines of: it is in the interests of both the world and the UK for the UK to move towards Net Zero, and we intend to do so - but there will be cases, such as that of North Sea oil, where the move towards Net Zero needs to be balanced by other considerations.
I think nuance is what Kemi misses much of the time. The Net Zero "step up against it or be canned" ultimatum seems somewhat reckless, not to say Stalinist.
This sort of thing will prolong the war, because Putin won't know how badly Russia is doing.
This is a typically ludicrous Ultra take. The bootlickers around him can't cover up the truth as if he were Nikolai II not least because he is an avid consumer of foreign media on the Internet in German and (maybe) English. The local authorities change fuel prices to avoid any possibility of embarrassing him or to simulate some sort of governing competence.
A cursory viewing of his annual Прямая линия с Владимиром Путиным phone in shows a relatively high level of contemporary cultural literacy for a 70 odd year old kratocrat.
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.
Johnson won his huge majority when people still believed that Brexit was leading to the sunlit uplands. Once that illusion was dead and buried with a stake through its heart the Tories crashed to their worst defeat in decades. Sunak was a Brexiteer by the way. The Tory party own Brexit I'm afraid and by huge margins voters now believe it was a mistake.
I am quite happy for the conservative party to own brexit even though I voted remain
It is not perfect, but I do not want UVL speaking for me rather than our PM whoever that is
Why did you vote remain then?
I'd guess like many of us. I voted Remain on a balance of benefits. I was not and remain unconvinced the organisation is anywhere near perfect.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
The split on the right is really helping Burnham now with FPTP.
Tories and Reform combined 6% ahead of Labour and LDs combined on votes but Labour most seats on this poll on 300 and with the 69 LD MPs would be a comfortable Labour and LD combined majority.
Reform and Tories now neck and neck on MPs, Reform 119 and Tories 116 but each projected less than half the Labour seats despite being only 4% and 6% behind Labour on voteshare
Labour could comfortably form a working coalition with the Lib Dems, or Greens or SNP/Plaid.
The Tories could not comfortably form a working coalition with Reform or anybody else.
Therein lies the Tories problem in a nutshell
Labour could comfortably form a coalition with the LDs but not with the Greens and even less so with the SNP/Plaid, the latter would just be deals of holding noses to keep out Reform and the Tories
I disagree but even if the Lib Dems were the only option for Labour the Tories are definitely in a much greater predicament.
Looks like the long overdue Green bubble deflation may be starting. They remain little more than a protest vote, and I’ve long felt their polling was gravity-defying.
Out of interest: RefCon 46%, LLG 48%. Restore might make up the difference though.
Starting?!?
It started in April when Polanski received some challenging and negative media attention and fluffed his response. The wiki graph has them peaking at nearly 16% at the beginning of April, and now down to nearly 11% and dropping fast.
Vote Green, Get Polanski
He’s a big tit.
Polanski is a deeply unserious leader and that will hurt the greens. Lots of us want green policies (I think Badenoch is making a mistake) but with rational decisions. But Polanski is another Corbyn retread.
Sorry but what Kemi has done is has nothing to do with whether one 'wants green policies' or not. Claiming that our current disastrous transition trajectory must be followed is the ultimate in 'we must do something', 'this is something', 'let's do it'.
Your comments does not match mine. I think Badenoch is being stupid as she should be aiming to broaden the appeal of her party, not restrict it to only people who reject net zero. If you are not in power you have no power to do anything.
And I think we should be exploiting our own resources on the way to a better world. Its insane to close down our North sea reserves and then buy from Norway. But that doesn't make Badenoch somehow right to shrink the available Tory pool even further.
What was the pool for Hayekian economic policies before Margaret Thatcher? Net Zero is killing the economy. Kemi has recognised that, and I would be very surprised if Burnham does not take steps in the same direction. At which point her stance becomes prescient and she quite rightly reaps the reward.
Comments
after you pass customs, you log back into the main account, and it downloads all the data.
What I heard from Burnham last week didn't suggest he was a paid up member of the Maggie fan club!
de mortuis nil nisi bonum
‘Do you have any weapons?’
Do not reply with
‘Why, what do you need?’
1) Going into the bank, you put on your Ronald Reagan mask.
2) Rob the place
3) Leave and then take the mask off.
4) Go surfing
Simples
EDIT: Don't give up on cybercrime yet. It's a profitable career, with lots of opportunities.
They can and do leave you in the cell until you comply, no right to an attorney, no right to a phone call…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
I’m not expecting the current case to change much the behaviour of US border patrol, who have for the last quarter century acted as a law unto themselves.
Yes, a second profile inside a sandbox makes much more sense as a duress code.
I am currently 53, so fours years younger than when he retired. I have a good life, happily married, a young son and have a nice house that we recently extended. But I have a mortgage to pay and the idea that I might retire in four years time is for the birds. I am a senior lecturer at a top 10 UK university. I am good at my job. I will have some component of pension based on final salary but not all. I can easily see why younger people may think that older folk had it better.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/berlin.htm
So you cross the border with an almost blank phone, plausible enough not to be too suspicious, logged in with a second account; then once you’re through the border, you wipe the phone and log into the real account, and download all your stuff from the cloud.
GRAHAM: “We’ve done it — I almost cried. We’ve been pushing this for years… Trump loves blowing stuff up.”
WSJ releases a new doc showing dead Republican Senator Lindsey Graham laughing that he helped Bibi convince Trump to attack Iran and get us into another deadly costly war..
https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/2081569043144646752
And even during the last 200 years it hasn't been a linear improvement.
“Do you have a criminal record?”
Do not reply with:
“I didn’t realise that was still a requirement”.
That's not the nub of generational politics, though.
What seems to upset younger people is them seeing/believing of us at the older end of the scale determinedly protecting our lifestyles at their expense.
You can argue to what extent that's true, but your comment sidesteps the issue.
Look around, then stage whisper in Plastic Scots - "Och aye, but does a Not Proven qualify, now?"
The prevailing view of many, a majority even, in the UK is that the EU was ‘done to’ to UK, rather than the UK being involved in it, and that much EU legislation was opposed by the UK electorate but not by the political class, who were happy to deflect the ‘blame’ onto the EU rather than themselves.
We can take those as the Maga cult who have been totally brainwashed and are clearly complete morons .
For Moonraker (1979), Stuntman Richard Graydon nearly died while hanging from a cable car 2,000 feet above Rio de Janeiro, without a safety line, because he didn’t want to appear rude.
“There was nothing else you could do but go for it. And hope it works.”
https://x.com/TheStingisBack/status/2081430849321328727
The failure of the left to coordinate helped Reform win more seats.'
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/tactical-voting-at-the-local-and-devolved-elections-2026/
The Tories also clearly won councils like Westminster, Wandsworth and Enfield from Labour with some Reform tactical votes
.. and then imagine you were born Chinese.
And I think we should be exploiting our own resources on the way to a better world. Its insane to close down our North sea reserves and then buy from Norway. But that doesn't make Badenoch somehow right to shrink the available Tory pool even further.
I expect Burnham's enthusiasm for PR will rapidly declide, indeed both the Tories and Reform would win more seats with PR than under FPTP on today's MiC poll
But I think COVID (and less so Ukraine) also spared the Tory government from endless coverage over every bit of Brexit going wrong.
Then the rules changed and we each needed our own, so that the next time we went Down Under all was well.
Even now Burnham's repudiating Thatcherism still only gets Labour to 28% at best, with the divide on the Thatcherite right between Tories and Reform gifting Labour a poll lead
Let's say it is true that the core political debate of this country is still around some kind of Thatcherite consensus or reaction against it, it still wouldn't be sensible to go on about Thatcher, because she left office over 30 years ago and most people are not thinking about ongoing legacy impacts, and where they are you need to tie it into modern perceptions not make everyone think it is ancient history of the 80s.
Bringing Thatcher into the mix is just some weird Boomerist and Gen X legacy on our political language that we need to get away from as it is done to excite the politically obsessed but just bores or baffles anyone who gained the right to vote since the turn of the millennium, unless that person is particularly engaged in politics and wants to get into deep analysis and discussion around the way things are - which the average voter doesn't.
That's why usually people talk about breaking consensus or doing new things etc, without getting specific on who, because that level of detail is not needed.
Mrs T, like all PMs from Attlee was implementing post WWII social democracy in a particular way significant for the times, and imperfectly. Burnham suggests (and no-one suggests) serious derogation from social democracy. He is neither a socialist nor a libertarian.
There are, it seems to me two deep questions: Is the social democrat deal of 1945 and onwards deliverable in any form?
If it is, then how. If it isn't, what would be the next national deal after the last 80 years.
Burnham's answer is obvious: continue and extend the social democratic deal; evidence - his concern for social care as a function of the state.
(Waves at Jim Radcliffe and Richard Branson)
This sort of thing will prolong the war, because Putin won't know how badly Russia is doing.
Reminds me of when Hong Kong held parish elections which went very badly for Beijing, and reports were they had genuinely been surprised as they had believed their own propaganda about how things would be fine.
Unfortunately they l earned their lesson and made sure to clamp down much much harder in the following years at legislative elections and other laws.
The New Labour government of 1997-2001 was ironically the second most capitalist and least social democrat, Blair spent even less than the Major government in his first term
NEW THREAD
Andy Burnham will host President Zelensky at No10, with him portraying himself as a local Manchester lad and DJ as the former actor and comedian Zelensky had a crash course on becoming a President in a now war torn country invaded by Russia for a second time and is leading that country which is now been under constant daily attack since then with whole cities which have been decimated by that invasion.
Now I was no a fan of Boris Johnson and I didn't vote for him in the Conservative leadership contest, but to give him credit for his biggest legacy and that was his unconditional support before and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He took all the right decisions when he realised due to UK intelligence that there was going to be an imminent invasion of Ukraine by Russia and he instigated some incredible vital military support in the run up to the invasion.
I followed flightrader24 closely in the six weeks leading up to the invasion and I noted the constant RAF flights in and out of Kyiv in the build up to the invasion where we made a real effort to support Ukraine's build up of their defences while too many of our European neighbours were caught napping and didn't believe it would happen so didn't do nearly enough to step up and support them at that time. But on this occasion both US and UK military intelligence called it right when other EU/NATO countries got it wrong.
I am going to make a prediction, Burnham won't win the next GE for the Labour party and for the simple fact that the UK economy will implode domestically and neither he or his government will turn out to be fit for purpose to deal with either the domestic or the global issues we currently face and in large part it will be due to dissent on his backbenches no matter how big the Labour majority is as Westminster, Starmer has already learnt the hard way!
Both Johnson and Burnham are quirky maverick politicians who were too quick in rewarding their supporters with key Cabinet posts due to loyalty rather than merit, but when the going gets tough even with a large majority it will be interesting to see if Burnham gets the chance to make the right call on the timing of the next GE. He can't make big changes to last Labour manifesto without calling another GE to get his own mandate to do this. If he thinks the large majority of MPs he inherited are going to be like herding cats, that is going to be nothing compared to trying to herd the current disgruntled electorate in the direction of voting for another Labour majority if he gets badly wrong.
Most Soviet-era apartment blocks have central heating for the whole block, with an oil-burner in the basement. If the oil doesn’t arrive in the autumn…
A cursory viewing of his annual Прямая линия с Владимиром Путиным phone in shows a relatively high level of contemporary cultural literacy for a 70 odd year old kratocrat.