Tories being obstructionist cunts? Never!

While I’m glad she’s done this, let’s not forget that Warsi is hardly the bastion of enlightened centrism, let alone anything progressive.

My argument since the election has essentially been, until the budget we don’t know what political decisions Reeves will make.

Reclassifying debt and assets in line with the IMF absolutely makes sense economically, and the Tories didn’t do it for political (ie brutalise the poor) reasons.

If the budget comes, and meaningful investment is not a centrepiece, then we can justifibly start calling Reeves many names under the sun, but until then, we cannot in good faith pretend we know what she’ll do.

Yes, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt. I really hope I’m right in doing so.

If I’m not, then fair enough, and I won’t pretend otherwise.

If you get a good one

In a word, yes.

Go to a hardcore show.

Surely not!

Setting the bar at pension credit recipients is too low, I would have much rather they brought forward the expected £400 uplift to the state pension, and removed the winter fuel payment at the same time. That way everyone who needs it would still get it, and those with private pensions / other sources of income would pay more income tax.

The moral argument for why poor pensioners need the payment is valid, but keep in mind that less pensioners live in poverty than working people - which is wild when you consider the demographic bulge the boomers represent. Neither children nor pensioners should freeze over winter in one of the largest economies in the world, with relatively moderate winters.

Lastly, about 25% of pensioners live in households with over £1m in assets. Granted, most of that wealth is tied up in the house, but if you own a £1m house that you can’t afford to heat, bluntly, fucking move.

I asked ChatGPT what it thought of this:

The phrase “rats leaving a sinking ship” often conjures images of individuals abandoning a failing situation in search of safety, reflecting a natural instinct for self-preservation. In the world of tech, leadership changes can evoke similar sentiments, particularly when a high-profile figure like Mira Murati steps down as CTO. Her departure may signal deeper issues within the company, leading to speculation about its stability and future direction. Just as rats flee a deteriorating vessel, employees and stakeholders might interpret her exit as a warning sign, prompting concerns about the organization’s health and long-term viability.

Murati’s tenure as CTO brought innovation and leadership, positioning the company as a front-runner in its industry. Her decision to leave could suggest an unraveling of the strategic vision that once propelled the organization forward. This parallel highlights the instinctive reaction of those within the company; employees may feel uncertain about their future, mirroring the chaos and trepidation felt aboard a ship in distress. The fear of instability can lead to a wave of resignations, as others seek to secure their own positions before the situation worsens.

However, not every departure must be viewed through a negative lens. Just as rats leaving a sinking ship might find new, more promising environments, Murati’s exit could open doors for fresh leadership and innovative ideas. This shift might provide an opportunity for rejuvenation and growth within the company, allowing it to adapt and evolve. While the immediate reaction may be one of alarm, such transitions can also lead to renewed focus and a stronger foundation, illustrating that change—though often unsettling—can ultimately foster resilience and progress.

Emphasis mine - no shit!

Also, good luck to those enterprising rats finding a more promising environment in the, er, sea…

A 20 year deal, with no power produced until 2028?

Either MS really do know something we don’t, or this bubble has grained a layer of strontium.

The lying liar is lying? No, shurely knot!

As I cover in my final paragraph.

Incase you didn’t know, Rwanda was for settled claims, not processing.

As in, they would be sent to Rwanda if they were successful in their asylum claim.

Processing asylum seekers in a country they are already in, like Albania, is significantly safer than forcing them to get in a dingy.

Now if we are taking people out of dingys in the channel, and taking them to Albania, then yes fuck that absolutely.

Love me some Tim!

A full itemised breakdown is a different level of rigor than a “to the closest billion, what’s going on?” request made civil servants as part of an incoming government. Given the statements made by the OBR themselves the idea that 22bn is inaccurate or false is pure cope.

Also, the FT not actually linking to their FOI request means you cannot see exactly what they requested, and a high level of detail could well lead to other disclosure problems (eg if overspend occurs in front line military).

Good to see the FT continuing to absolutely destroy their credibility:

The response from the Treasury’s information rights unit said details would be published respecting agreed timelines “to allow the relevant officials time to complete the preparation of the information to ensure it is accurate and correct prior to publication”.

[…]

A spokesperson added the Treasury intends to provide more details of the overspending, either at the Budget or in separate spending releases.

Not exactly sure how this can be considered a refusal…hmmmmm.

Respectfully, I didn’t ignore the rest of what you said.

I agree that representatives need to explain to the electorate why they are best placed to elect them for what comes ahead.

But the key point is that we don’t actually know what comes ahead. They have a manifesto, etc, but there will always be unforeseen circumstances which arise.

In those moments in a representative democracy the representatives make the decisions. Your vote for them has allowed you to have your person at the table, but they don’t need to consult with the electorate again.

If they do, you’re moving towards direct democracy.

There are good arguments why governments should look to keep the electorate informed, explain actions, and justify decisions, but the popularity of a measure shouldn’t be the sole factor.

Simple fact, if an opinion is popular. Completely ignoring it is anti-democratic.

This is an incredibly simplistic definition which describes delegates, not representatives.

A delegate must do what they are instructed - think of them as your hands - whereas a representative is someone who makes decisions on your behalf - a second brain.

Delegates are extremely susceptible to tyranny of the majority, whereas representatives - in theory - seek to balance actions across all the people they represent, as well as their expertise and knowledge.

Populism is that thing your mum was on about where if your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you?

It might absolutely be the right decision, depending on the context, but if it isn’t then you shouldn’t do the wrong thing just because it’s popular.

There is a difference between being pro-austerity, and being pro means testing.

Do I agree with the bar being set at being in receipt of pension credit? Fuck no, that’s far too low given you’re talking about a scenario where pensioners have less than 10k/yr and would be spending over 10% of their money on heating.

But, pensioners with a full state pension, and a private / workplace pension on top, sitting in a big house they bought in the 80s to raise a family in, all of whom have since moved out, and is now worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds, really don’t need the extra cash.

So there should be a cut off, but not where it currently is. Ultimately, this shows the state pension is still too low if an extra payment is required so people don’t freeze. If the state pension was higher, to the point this payment wasn’t needed, then I think it would be a sensible place to put the limit, because pensioners with extra income (like private or workplace pensions) fundamentally shouldn’t need it, because the state pension should be the base line.

I’m fully expecting a level of wealth taxing to be announced in the budget - it really isn’t something you want to leak before hand because the ultra wealthy will move their money elsewhere, cos they’re parasites - but if Reeves doesn’t bring one in, then she and Starmer are going to have a very tough time.

And Graham fits the description very aptly.

How a trade unionist can claim authority based on 4% of the membership is beyond me. No wonder she’s so incredibly unpopular within the union.