[Tubby Isaacs]

They’re a joke paper. No bit of silly teenage populism is off limits.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Here's another "they wanna get on and fix it" article, about the NHS.

How quickly do problems get fixed at the Guardian, one wonders? If I were to say that comment remains dire, dominated by "generalists" who always say the same thing and know no more than I do about most stuff, how long would it be reasonable to wait before they were all sacked, or retrained by experts in a few fields which they could then concentrate on and produce (let's say) a decent trade-press standard of analysis, albeit with style tailored to a wider public? No idea how long it would take, but that's a lot easier than anything a government does.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... not-enough

[Tubby Isaacs]

And some very slanted stuff about Starmer possibly making Khan a peer.

Starmer is likely to face criticism for the plan; in 2022 he referred to the House of Lords as “indefensible” and said that an incoming Labour government would replace it with an elected chamber.

Instead he has offered more peerages than each of his four most recent Conservative predecessors.

I was as surprised as anyone when he said in 2022 that he'd abolish the Lords. Wasn't at all surprised that he dropped that. And sure it's bad.

He's also about to kick out 77 hereditaries, and would have kicked out all 92 if the Lords hadn't disgracefully opposed a manifesto commitment. How does that affect the figures? The other PMs didn't serve for very long and enjoyed big Tory majorities already,

He's appointed more peers than Liz Truss? How long was she PM for?

[Abernathy]

It makes no sense. If Starmer wants to send Khan to the Lords, fair enough. But why would he do it two years before Khan finishes his current term as London’s mayor ? He’ll be Lord Khan in 2028, not this May.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ben Houchen is a (rarely attending peer) and a metro mayor. It can be done. But Mayor of London and in the Cabinet, that's obvious rubbish.

I don't see much point in making Khan a peer, unless that's an attempt to build a better relationship with him.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

And prevent him coming back to the Commons?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

If Starmer could walk on water they would complain that he can't swim part 476...

The Guardian view on a recovering NHS: public confidence has risen, but not enough
Editorial

But in a Paragraph19 moment:

But judging from these figures, the public appears inclined to accept the government’s narrative of a broken system being painstakingly put back together. Since voters have historically trusted Labour more than other parties when it comes to health, this is intuitive: the politicians who they thought would be better at running the NHS are now in charge.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah, I saw that.

Got a great line about the public having a right to be "impatient".

[Tubby Isaacs]

It makes no sense. If Starmer wants to send Khan to the Lords, fair enough. But why would he do it two years before Khan finishes his current term as London’s mayor ? He’ll be Lord Khan in 2028, not this May.

It occurs to me that metro mayors could be in the Lords just by being metro mayors. Everyone agrees that "regions" need more representation. Why not put all the mayors in?