Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Ah well - it's not your day any more, and times have changed. Why 8am, and not earlier, say 6am?
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Do you think that TPTB turned up at 6am in the morning ?
Funnily enough, there *is* a question for the new government about whether it would bring back *Our Boys* who are (allegedly) on the ground in Ukraine, in the sort of units that HMG don’t comment on…
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Meanwhile, an update on the disorder in Leeds - @Telford will be pleased to know that arrests are likely, or at least planned:
It seems that the police withdrew, in order to avoid escalation (rather than *letting them get on with it*), and that there may well be arrests in due course.
Agency workers and children were involved, but all taken to safety.
A nasty incident, nevertheless.
It is impossible from the outside to know if the police handled this appropriately or not. There are definitely times when de-escalation by the police is appropriate and it certainly does not preclude future arrests. The police should certainly be subject to appropriate scrutiny but ignorant second-guessing on the basis of no data helps nobody.
AFZ
I totally agree. It sounds like a job for the Shudder squad
What is a *Shudder squad*, please?
They were particularly active in my day at 8am following an incident during the night.
It was a case of Should have done this or Should have done that.
Ah well - it's not your day any more, and times have changed. Why 8am, and not earlier, say 6am?
Thanks for the explanation, though.
Do you think that TPTB turned up at 6am in the morning ?
One witness, Usmaan, described seeing police retreat earlier in the day in order to calm the scene. “Police decided to disengage, I spoke to a sergeant and he said they decided to retreat to de-escalate it and the fire was starting to settle down.
“Then riot police came and sparked everything up. Bricks were thrown and then the riot police retreated. Then they lit the bus on fire.”
Thing is, they'd be criticised whatever they did. 'They went in too heavy...', 'They didn't go in hard enough...', 'They should have withdrawn to de-escalate the situation...', 'They should have intervened to prevent it...', 'They should have made arrests there and then...', 'They should have left it and made arrests later...'
Thing is, they'd be criticised whatever they did. 'They went in too heavy...', 'They didn't go in hard enough...', 'They should have withdrawn to de-escalate the situation...', 'They should have intervened to prevent it...', 'They should have made arrests there and then...', 'They should have left it and made arrests later...'
Sorry, that was an oblique reference to @Gamma Gamaliel with his list of "shudders" posted just after 11pm. Which I'll apologise for, as it was a bit personal.
I suppose that's a question of whether the "Shudder Squad" is just the management working 9-5 commenting on what police controllers (and others in similar situations) on the ground decided was the best action late at night, or does it include the armchair commentators on social media posting their views on what should have been done.
Thing is, they'd be criticised whatever they did. 'They went in too heavy...', 'They didn't go in hard enough...', 'They should have withdrawn to de-escalate the situation...', 'They should have intervened to prevent it...', 'They should have made arrests there and then...', 'They should have left it and made arrests later...'
They may have been; but the history of policing in the UK provides plenty of instances where the police over-escalated, even if you just restrict yourself to the last few years.
Thing is, they'd be criticised whatever they did. 'They went in too heavy...', 'They didn't go in hard enough...', 'They should have withdrawn to de-escalate the situation...', 'They should have intervened to prevent it...', 'They should have made arrests there and then...', 'They should have left it and made arrests later...'
They may have been; but the history of policing in the UK provides plenty of instances where the police over-escalated, even if you just restrict yourself to the last few years.
When I attended public order training in the 1980s, we had scenarios of attacks by bricks and petrol bombs etc. We were trained to either stand our ground or move forward.
I appreciate that there is a big difference between disorders during planned events and spontaneous disorders where officers have to wait for support.
About a week ago, Sir Keir said that Joe Biden was in fine form. He now says that he made the right decision to drop out of the race.
Make your mind up Sir Keir.
A week is a long time in politics, and, IIRC, Sir Keir did say that his meeting with Mr Biden went very well, and that Mr B was indeed in fine form at that time. I think we can take that as the truth.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
But to be fair, Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
But to be fair, Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
But to be fair, Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
About a week ago, Sir Keir said that Joe Biden was in fine form. He now says that he made the right decision to drop out of the race.
Make your mind up Sir Keir.
There are several different factors at play here.
One is that when Keir Starmer met with Joe Biden a week ago he could have been in "fine form", but that could have been how he was then and not representative of how he always is - and in politics there's a requirement to be on "fine form" all the time otherwise people face the "don't you think they look tired?" six word destruction of their career. That's especially true for a political campaign where candidates are almost permanently in the spot light.
Second, being in "fine form" as President doesn't need to be the same as "fine form" for campaigning. A President has the option of passing much of the day to day work to others if they're not at that moment up for it. A candidate can't just decide they can't make a public event that's been planned (see the above mentioned "don't you think they look tired?"). Campaigning is all about being seen, and optics are much more important.
Finally, being in "fine form" now is one thing. But, in an election there's always a question about whether someone will be in "fine form" in 2, 3 or 4 years time. I'm in no position to comment on whether Biden's health is or is not declining, but the portrayal by his opponents is definitely that his health is declining and puts a question mark over whether he can last a full term as President - question marks his campaign hasn't managed to hot out of the park.
Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
Largely agreed; in addition the UK has limited influence on the direction of politics in the US and will have to work with whatever the resulting outcome. From that perspective, and the one of small countries not starting something with big countries they can't finish, I can see the value of a largely diplomatic approach of faint praise that doesn't damn.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
But to be fair, Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
Not so. I predicted and accepted the election result last year
That clearly doesn’t mean you liked it - as you continue to demonstrate.
I was indifferent to the Conservatives losing. I did not like the fact that Labour won. They screamed "lies" when Sunak said they would raise taxes. They are already hinting that they will need to raise taxes.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
But to be fair, Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
Not so. I predicted and accepted the election result last year
That clearly doesn’t mean you liked it - as you continue to demonstrate.
I was indifferent to the Conservatives losing. I did not like the fact that Labour won. They screamed "lies" when Sunak said they would raise taxes. They are already hinting that they will need to raise taxes.
I have not seen such hints. Do you mean they have pointed out how much the Tories have buggered up public finances through world-class ineptitude, or do you have something else in mind?
Bibby Stockholm to be taken out of use, confirmed today.
Another tick on the To Do list.
I know I’m a cynic who hates them, but I’m still waiting to see what Labour do when they actually face a test.
We’re in the freewheeling honeymoon here, let’s see what they’re like when like all governments they’ve got blood and muck on their hands and have had to let decent people that voted for them down.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
But to be fair, Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
Because he wants to find fault?Because he doesn't like it because the Tories lost?
Not so. I predicted and accepted the election result last year
That clearly doesn’t mean you liked it - as you continue to demonstrate.
I was indifferent to the Conservatives losing. I did not like the fact that Labour won. They screamed "lies" when Sunak said they would raise taxes. They are already hinting that they will need to raise taxes.
I have not seen such hints. Do you mean they have pointed out how much the Tories have buggered up public finances through world-class ineptitude, or do you have something else in mind?
They were well aware of the difficulties when they kept promising no taxes rises for working people
I did not like the fact that Labour won. They screamed "lies" when Sunak said they would raise taxes. They are already hinting that they will need to raise taxes.
Sunak's lie was to put a specific number on the tax rise which the Conservatives calculated by dubious means, and then attributed to an independent branch of the civil service who had not made those calculations.
Furthermore, apparently if one applied the same methodology the Conservatives used to their own spending plans one got an even larger rise in taxes.
Bibby Stockholm to be taken out of use, confirmed today.
Another tick on the To Do list.
I know I’m a cynic who hates them, but I’m still waiting to see what Labour do when they actually face a test.
We’re in the freewheeling honeymoon here, let’s see what they’re like when like all governments they’ve got blood and muck on their hands and have had to let decent people that voted for them down.
Sorry, bad day.
To be clear, I want them to do well. They’re the government and we all sink or swim with them so it would be madness not to.
But I didn’t vote for them and being British have come to expect war, failure and dashed hopes regardless of which party wins.
Consequently I do try and share the joy of the supporters, but with an eye out for scales falling from eyes down the road.
ISTM that the government will scrap the cap, probably quite soon, but maybe they're being a bit over-cautious about where the £££ will come from?
They're doing what they said they would. Not make large commits without them being properly costed. Only an idiot (or a fully fledged Corbynista) would think that they want to keep this benefit cap. A review into child poverty has been set up. One of its conclusions will almost certainly be the removal of this cap, in conjunction with a number of other joined-up recommendations.
To be honest, I think the seven Labour MPs who voted for the SNPs amendment were stupid and deserved their punishment. They achieved nothing than a piece of self-promoting grandstanding. If they were really committed to reducing child poverty, they should throw their weight behind the review and make sure that there is a proper, joined-up, plan. Removing this single benefit cap won't end child poverty. It needs far more than that and it needs to be done in a way that will be effective and lasting.
I'm sick and tired of gesture politics. And that's what this was.
You can lift the cap and join it up after. You don't need a review to do the obviously right thing, unless you're an idiot (or a fully fledged Starmerroid). It's a non-binding vote so a three line whip and suspensions for defying it is petty posturing.
If you must play the absurd fiscal rules dance it's an investment in reducing the burden on health, social work, criminal justice and pretty much every part of the public sector that has to deal with the fallout of poverty. Calculate the Keynesian demand multipliers and show that it will pay for itself x times. If they want to do it they can find a way, but they're more interested in grandstanding about "fiscal responsibility" than helping people, i.e. if they do want to do it they want to a lot less than they do other things.
ISTM that the government will scrap the cap, probably quite soon, but maybe they're being a bit over-cautious about where the £££ will come from?
They're doing what they said they would. Not make large commits without them being properly costed. Only an idiot (or a fully fledged Corbynista) would think that they want to keep this benefit cap. A review into child poverty has been set up. One of its conclusions will almost certainly be the removal of this cap, in conjunction with a number of other joined-up recommendations.
Can you think of any circumstances in which the cap would be kept ? No. So keeping it in the meantime is silly gesture politics in service of made up fiscal rules.
Remember when Lammy stated in April that he would publish the legal advice received by the government on arms exports to Israel? How's that going?
I did not like the fact that Labour won. They screamed "lies" when Sunak said they would raise taxes. They are already hinting that they will need to raise taxes.
Sunak's lie was to put a specific number on the tax rise which the Conservatives calculated by dubious means, and then attributed to an independent branch of the civil service who had not made those calculations.
Furthermore, apparently if one applied the same methodology the Conservatives used to their own spending plans one got an even larger rise in taxes.
They both failed to tell the whole truth but that's not unusal in politics,
I have just watched Ms Reeves on the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show. I was pleasantly impressed with her performance.
ISTM that the government will scrap the cap, probably quite soon, but maybe they're being a bit over-cautious about where the £££ will come from?
They're doing what they said they would. Not make large commits without them being properly costed. Only an idiot (or a fully fledged Corbynista) would think that they want to keep this benefit cap. A review into child poverty has been set up. One of its conclusions will almost certainly be the removal of this cap, in conjunction with a number of other joined-up recommendations.
To be honest, I think the seven Labour MPs who voted for the SNPs amendment were stupid and deserved their punishment. They achieved nothing than a piece of self-promoting grandstanding. If they were really committed to reducing child poverty, they should throw their weight behind the review and make sure that there is a proper, joined-up, plan. Removing this single benefit cap won't end child poverty. It needs far more than that and it needs to be done in a way that will be effective and lasting.
I'm sick and tired of gesture politics. And that's what this was.
All seven have said they voted with the SNP because they think it is best for their constituents. The vote went against them. They shouldn’t have had the whip removed for voting the way they thought best for their constituents.
Interesting that several of them were supported Corbyn.
ISTM that the government will scrap the cap, probably quite soon, but maybe they're being a bit over-cautious about where the £££ will come from?
They're doing what they said they would. Not make large commits without them being properly costed. Only an idiot (or a fully fledged Corbynista) would think that they want to keep this benefit cap. A review into child poverty has been set up. One of its conclusions will almost certainly be the removal of this cap, in conjunction with a number of other joined-up recommendations.
To be honest, I think the seven Labour MPs who voted for the SNPs amendment were stupid and deserved their punishment. They achieved nothing than a piece of self-promoting grandstanding. If they were really committed to reducing child poverty, they should throw their weight behind the review and make sure that there is a proper, joined-up, plan. Removing this single benefit cap won't end child poverty. It needs far more than that and it needs to be done in a way that will be effective and lasting.
I'm sick and tired of gesture politics. And that's what this was.
All seven have said they voted with the SNP because they think it is best for their constituents. The vote went against them. They shouldn’t have had the whip removed for voting the way they thought best for their constituents.
Interesting that several of them were supported Corbyn.
Reviewed in 6 months. Plenty of time for them to vote the same way as the government if they want to get off the naughty step
Leaving aside the question of the benefit cap for a moment (and Labour seem to be like people scrabbling down the back of the sofa for change with which to pay the milkman), this obscenity comes to light:
I don't expect the government can do anything about it, as it appears to be a legitimate obscenity, but it stinks...
Another way of looking at that, from that very article, is 'every year the state takes 100% of the King's annual income from his assets, and graciously gives him back 12% of it.'
I'm assuming it's only the scale of the assets that means no one bats an eyelid at the arrangement, because if they tried 'we'll let you keep 12% of your annual income but the rest of it is ours' with everyone else in the country then we'd have had a revolution by now.
Whether it *should* belong to the King is a different question, but even the Guardian isn't questioning that it *does* - on the other hand if we all ring up HMRC and hand over 88% of our income from the last tax year then we'll be showing the way!
I don't expect the government can do anything about it, as it appears to be a legitimate obscenity, but it stinks...
Another way of looking at that, from that very article, is 'every year the state takes 100% of the King's annual income from his assets, and graciously gives him back 12% of it.'
I'm assuming it's only the scale of the assets that means no one bats an eyelid at the arrangement, because if they tried 'we'll let you keep 12% of your annual income but the rest of it is ours' with everyone else in the country then we'd have had a revolution by now.
Whether it *should* belong to the King is a different question, but even the Guardian isn't questioning that it *does* - on the other hand if we all ring up HMRC and hand over 88% of our income from the last tax year then we'll be showing the way!
It's actually a lot more complex than that.
However, I lack both time and energy to write a long article of rebuttal, and it would be tedious and off-topic anyway.
Leaving aside the question of the benefit cap for a moment (and Labour seem to be like people scrabbling down the back of the sofa for change with which to pay the milkman), this obscenity comes to light:
I don't expect the government can do anything about it, as it appears to be a legitimate obscenity, but it stinks...
Another way of looking at that, from that very article, is 'every year the state takes 100% of the King's annual income from his assets, and graciously gives him back 12% of it.'
I'm assuming it's only the scale of the assets that means no one bats an eyelid at the arrangement, because if they tried 'we'll let you keep 12% of your annual income but the rest of it is ours' with everyone else in the country then we'd have had a revolution by now.
Whether it *should* belong to the King is a different question, but even the Guardian isn't questioning that it *does* - on the other hand if we all ring up HMRC and hand over 88% of our income from the last tax year then we'll be showing the way!
It's actually a lot more complex than that.
However, I lack both time and energy to write a long article of rebuttal, and it would be tedious and off-topic anyway.
It’s also a lot more complex than the Guardian’s report, but I was responding like for like. Once you get into Parliament bailing out the monarchy - but even then that’s where the fault lies because they chose to do so to maintain the status quo… so legally we are where we are.
I don't expect the government can do anything about it, as it appears to be a legitimate obscenity, but it stinks...
Another way of looking at that, from that very article, is 'every year the state takes 100% of the King's annual income from his assets, and graciously gives him back 12% of it.'
The Crown, while currently held by King Charles III, is not the same as the personal property of the King (e.g. Balmoral). He should no more personally accrue its profits than should a diocesan bishop (similarly the holder of a corporation sole) personally receive the income of diocesan endowments and/or estates. It's an anachronism.
Leaving aside the question of the benefit cap for a moment (and Labour seem to be like people scrabbling down the back of the sofa for change with which to pay the milkman), this obscenity comes to light:
ISTM that the government will scrap the cap, probably quite soon, but maybe they're being a bit over-cautious about where the £££ will come from?
They're doing what they said they would. Not make large commits without them being properly costed. Only an idiot (or a fully fledged Corbynista) would think that they want to keep this benefit cap. A review into child poverty has been set up. One of its conclusions will almost certainly be the removal of this cap, in conjunction with a number of other joined-up recommendations.
To be honest, I think the seven Labour MPs who voted for the SNPs amendment were stupid and deserved their punishment. They achieved nothing than a piece of self-promoting grandstanding. If they were really committed to reducing child poverty, they should throw their weight behind the review and make sure that there is a proper, joined-up, plan. Removing this single benefit cap won't end child poverty. It needs far more than that and it needs to be done in a way that will be effective and lasting.
I'm sick and tired of gesture politics. And that's what this was.
All seven have said they voted with the SNP because they think it is best for their constituents. The vote went against them. They shouldn’t have had the whip removed for voting the way they thought best for their constituents. .
Whipping in this case allegedly included telling a victim of DV that the Party's support for DV legislation was contingent on her voting the right way:
ISTM that the government will scrap the cap, probably quite soon, but maybe they're being a bit over-cautious about where the £££ will come from?
They're doing what they said they would. Not make large commits without them being properly costed. Only an idiot (or a fully fledged Corbynista) would think that they want to keep this benefit cap. A review into child poverty has been set up. One of its conclusions will almost certainly be the removal of this cap, in conjunction with a number of other joined-up recommendations.
To be honest, I think the seven Labour MPs who voted for the SNPs amendment were stupid and deserved their punishment. They achieved nothing than a piece of self-promoting grandstanding. If they were really committed to reducing child poverty, they should throw their weight behind the review and make sure that there is a proper, joined-up, plan. Removing this single benefit cap won't end child poverty. It needs far more than that and it needs to be done in a way that will be effective and lasting.
I'm sick and tired of gesture politics. And that's what this was.
All seven have said they voted with the SNP because they think it is best for their constituents. The vote went against them. They shouldn’t have had the whip removed for voting the way they thought best for their constituents. .
Whipping in this case allegedly included telling a victim of DV that the Party's support for DV legislation was contingent on her voting the right way:
Definitely "shocked but not surprised" territory. Occasionally I can be lulled by the siren calls of "they're doing the best they can" and "they have good intentions", but this shit? This snaps me awake and reminds me who these bastards are. Be interesting to see if Jess Phillips will put her head above the parapet on this one.
All seven have said they voted with the SNP because they think it is best for their constituents. The vote went against them. They shouldn’t have had the whip removed for voting the way they thought best for their constituents.
Interesting that several of them were supported Corbyn.
Suspension is a normal enough consequence of defying a three-line whip, even if you think it's in the best interests of your constituents.
You may feel that it's all just a bit pathetic/grubby/nonsense, that's fine. I may feel the same way.
However, it's essentially a non story that will be long forgotten very soon.
Well kind of; They will at some point have to remove the cap, if only because the review is very likely to suggest it. The cap is one of the major causes of rising poverty, and lifting it is seen as one of the more efficient means of reducing child poverty - it's highly targeted and involves minimal additional costs as it uses the existing benefit system.
So on a purely pragmatic level there's a case for lifting it quickly and being able to boast about reduced child poverty figures in four years time. Keeping it isn't a manifesto commitment anyway, so generating additional heat over the issue is pointless.
So a non-story then? On the one hand no, because in the meantime there are a few 100 thousand families who are left in poverty. On the other hand also no, because the reversal of the policy will be written up as 'another Starmer u-turn' and there's the outside possibility that they try to avoid the story by not reversing it later or doing yet another benefits shake up with additional cost but fewer benefits.
It will not be seen as a U-turn by most. The Tory press will - with their usual infinitesimal levels of shame and sensitivity try to portray it as such but it won't fly.
Labour's policy is to remove it at some point but it was not promised because they would not make the pledge because it wasn't clear it was affordable.
I strongly disagree with that for two reasons. However, that's irrelevant. The policy means that Labour can remove the cap at any point in the parliament and that just means they've stuck to their policy. The line is obvious: we did it as soon as we could afford it.
Again, whatever you think of the facts here, the politics is easy. Starmer wins by doing this at a time of his choosing.
I want it done as soon as possible but it's not a negligible - nor nonsensical - argument that such decisions should wait for the first budget.
Lifting the cap will also inject money into the economy, for those who are struggling that extra money will be spent on food or rent or the electric. Thus, it will not only help people in need it will help boost the economy and hence tax income (though, additional tax will be less than the money spent, but longer term (as @Arethosemyfeet has already said) the savings in other budgets will be greater than the cost - longer term because easing the financial burden on the poor will reduce criminality and poverty related illnesses, but mainly in children who are still very young, the damage of poverty for those who have been failed by Tory austerity is largely set in and will take more than a few extra quid for their parents (assuming they're still young enough to be considered children) to address those problems.
Comments
I have heard that there have been 5 arrests, probably members of the family involved, but I could be wrong
I have read all the article but I will not be subscribing
One witness, Usmaan, described seeing police retreat earlier in the day in order to calm the scene. “Police decided to disengage, I spoke to a sergeant and he said they decided to retreat to de-escalate it and the fire was starting to settle down.
“Then riot police came and sparked everything up. Bricks were thrown and then the riot police retreated. Then they lit the bus on fire.”
My italics.
True.
I suppose that's a question of whether the "Shudder Squad" is just the management working 9-5 commenting on what police controllers (and others in similar situations) on the ground decided was the best action late at night, or does it include the armchair commentators on social media posting their views on what should have been done.
They may have been; but the history of policing in the UK provides plenty of instances where the police over-escalated, even if you just restrict yourself to the last few years.
@Alan Cresswell - ha ha - no offence taken. I hadn't realised the reference was to my post but nice one. Well batted. No need to apologise.
When I attended public order training in the 1980s, we had scenarios of attacks by bricks and petrol bombs etc. We were trained to either stand our ground or move forward.
I appreciate that there is a big difference between disorders during planned events and spontaneous disorders where officers have to wait for support.
Times have changed I suppose
https://inews.co.uk/news/leveson-inquiry-part-two-wont-ahead-3182097
Although this was telegraphed months in advance, and not just by non-inclusion in their manifesto:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/dec/16/labour-backs-away-press-reforms-after-prince-harry-phone-hacking-victory
Make your mind up Sir Keir.
A week is a long time in politics, and, IIRC, Sir Keir did say that his meeting with Mr Biden went very well, and that Mr B was indeed in fine form at that time. I think we can take that as the truth.
Why do you think there's a contradiction in these two statements?
But to be fair, Stsrmer has form when it comes to changing his tune. I'm more bothered about him changing his mind and direction on certain policies that other political parties as well as many in his own ranks would like to see implemented.
What he thinks or says about Biden is far less important than that.
That clearly doesn’t mean you liked it - as you continue to demonstrate.
One is that when Keir Starmer met with Joe Biden a week ago he could have been in "fine form", but that could have been how he was then and not representative of how he always is - and in politics there's a requirement to be on "fine form" all the time otherwise people face the "don't you think they look tired?" six word destruction of their career. That's especially true for a political campaign where candidates are almost permanently in the spot light.
Second, being in "fine form" as President doesn't need to be the same as "fine form" for campaigning. A President has the option of passing much of the day to day work to others if they're not at that moment up for it. A candidate can't just decide they can't make a public event that's been planned (see the above mentioned "don't you think they look tired?"). Campaigning is all about being seen, and optics are much more important.
Finally, being in "fine form" now is one thing. But, in an election there's always a question about whether someone will be in "fine form" in 2, 3 or 4 years time. I'm in no position to comment on whether Biden's health is or is not declining, but the portrayal by his opponents is definitely that his health is declining and puts a question mark over whether he can last a full term as President - question marks his campaign hasn't managed to hot out of the park.
Largely agreed; in addition the UK has limited influence on the direction of politics in the US and will have to work with whatever the resulting outcome. From that perspective, and the one of small countries not starting something with big countries they can't finish, I can see the value of a largely diplomatic approach of faint praise that doesn't damn.
I have not seen such hints. Do you mean they have pointed out how much the Tories have buggered up public finances through world-class ineptitude, or do you have something else in mind?
Another tick on the To Do list.
I know I’m a cynic who hates them, but I’m still waiting to see what Labour do when they actually face a test.
We’re in the freewheeling honeymoon here, let’s see what they’re like when like all governments they’ve got blood and muck on their hands and have had to let decent people that voted for them down.
Furthermore, apparently if one applied the same methodology the Conservatives used to their own spending plans one got an even larger rise in taxes.
Sorry, bad day.
To be clear, I want them to do well. They’re the government and we all sink or swim with them so it would be madness not to.
But I didn’t vote for them and being British have come to expect war, failure and dashed hopes regardless of which party wins.
Consequently I do try and share the joy of the supporters, but with an eye out for scales falling from eyes down the road.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/23/labour-mps-vote-to-scrap-two-child-benefit-cap-in-first-rebellion-for-starmer
ISTM that the government will scrap the cap, probably quite soon, but maybe they're being a bit over-cautious about where the £££ will come from?
They're doing what they said they would. Not make large commits without them being properly costed. Only an idiot (or a fully fledged Corbynista) would think that they want to keep this benefit cap. A review into child poverty has been set up. One of its conclusions will almost certainly be the removal of this cap, in conjunction with a number of other joined-up recommendations.
To be honest, I think the seven Labour MPs who voted for the SNPs amendment were stupid and deserved their punishment. They achieved nothing than a piece of self-promoting grandstanding. If they were really committed to reducing child poverty, they should throw their weight behind the review and make sure that there is a proper, joined-up, plan. Removing this single benefit cap won't end child poverty. It needs far more than that and it needs to be done in a way that will be effective and lasting.
I'm sick and tired of gesture politics. And that's what this was.
If you must play the absurd fiscal rules dance it's an investment in reducing the burden on health, social work, criminal justice and pretty much every part of the public sector that has to deal with the fallout of poverty. Calculate the Keynesian demand multipliers and show that it will pay for itself x times. If they want to do it they can find a way, but they're more interested in grandstanding about "fiscal responsibility" than helping people, i.e. if they do want to do it they want to a lot less than they do other things.
Can you think of any circumstances in which the cap would be kept ? No. So keeping it in the meantime is silly gesture politics in service of made up fiscal rules.
Remember when Lammy stated in April that he would publish the legal advice received by the government on arms exports to Israel? How's that going?
They both failed to tell the whole truth but that's not unusal in politics,
I have just watched Ms Reeves on the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show. I was pleasantly impressed with her performance.
All seven have said they voted with the SNP because they think it is best for their constituents. The vote went against them. They shouldn’t have had the whip removed for voting the way they thought best for their constituents.
Interesting that several of them were supported Corbyn.
Reviewed in 6 months. Plenty of time for them to vote the same way as the government if they want to get off the naughty step
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/24/king-to-receive-extra-45m-of-public-money-as-crown-estate-income-soars
I don't expect the government can do anything about it, as it appears to be a legitimate obscenity, but it stinks...
Another way of looking at that, from that very article, is 'every year the state takes 100% of the King's annual income from his assets, and graciously gives him back 12% of it.'
I'm assuming it's only the scale of the assets that means no one bats an eyelid at the arrangement, because if they tried 'we'll let you keep 12% of your annual income but the rest of it is ours' with everyone else in the country then we'd have had a revolution by now.
Whether it *should* belong to the King is a different question, but even the Guardian isn't questioning that it *does* - on the other hand if we all ring up HMRC and hand over 88% of our income from the last tax year then we'll be showing the way!
It's actually a lot more complex than that.
However, I lack both time and energy to write a long article of rebuttal, and it would be tedious and off-topic anyway.
His Majesty employs a lot of people with his money and that can only be a good thing
It’s also a lot more complex than the Guardian’s report, but I was responding like for like. Once you get into Parliament bailing out the monarchy - but even then that’s where the fault lies because they chose to do so to maintain the status quo… so legally we are where we are.
Agree it’s tedious and off-topic!
The Crown, while currently held by King Charles III, is not the same as the personal property of the King (e.g. Balmoral). He should no more personally accrue its profits than should a diocesan bishop (similarly the holder of a corporation sole) personally receive the income of diocesan endowments and/or estates. It's an anachronism.
As long as he pays them well, maybe. Does he?
Whipping in this case allegedly included telling a victim of DV that the Party's support for DV legislation was contingent on her voting the right way:
https://x.com/OwenJones84/status/1816150436254044260 (linking to Jones as Sky have deleted their tweet and the associated video).
Definitely "shocked but not surprised" territory. Occasionally I can be lulled by the siren calls of "they're doing the best they can" and "they have good intentions", but this shit? This snaps me awake and reminds me who these bastards are. Be interesting to see if Jess Phillips will put her head above the parapet on this one.
Suspension is a normal enough consequence of defying a three-line whip, even if you think it's in the best interests of your constituents.
Labour will get to the cap. They won't do it before the budget.
The SNP probably did it for good reasons rather than political game-playing but they do have form with the latter.
The Whip removal is because the rebellion embarrasses the party. Starmer/the whips putting down an early marker about party discipline.
You may feel that it's all just a bit pathetic/grubby/nonsense, that's fine. I may feel the same way.
However, it's essentially a non story that will be long forgotten very soon.
YMMV, of course.
AFZ
Well kind of; They will at some point have to remove the cap, if only because the review is very likely to suggest it. The cap is one of the major causes of rising poverty, and lifting it is seen as one of the more efficient means of reducing child poverty - it's highly targeted and involves minimal additional costs as it uses the existing benefit system.
So on a purely pragmatic level there's a case for lifting it quickly and being able to boast about reduced child poverty figures in four years time. Keeping it isn't a manifesto commitment anyway, so generating additional heat over the issue is pointless.
So a non-story then? On the one hand no, because in the meantime there are a few 100 thousand families who are left in poverty. On the other hand also no, because the reversal of the policy will be written up as 'another Starmer u-turn' and there's the outside possibility that they try to avoid the story by not reversing it later or doing yet another benefits shake up with additional cost but fewer benefits.
It will not be seen as a U-turn by most. The Tory press will - with their usual infinitesimal levels of shame and sensitivity try to portray it as such but it won't fly.
Labour's policy is to remove it at some point but it was not promised because they would not make the pledge because it wasn't clear it was affordable.
I strongly disagree with that for two reasons. However, that's irrelevant. The policy means that Labour can remove the cap at any point in the parliament and that just means they've stuck to their policy. The line is obvious: we did it as soon as we could afford it.
Again, whatever you think of the facts here, the politics is easy. Starmer wins by doing this at a time of his choosing.
I want it done as soon as possible but it's not a negligible - nor nonsensical - argument that such decisions should wait for the first budget.
AFZ