[mattomac]

I've really lost interest in news being portrayed like a football summer transfer window.

Like I've followed very little of it, but what I know of the last few days is growth is around .7%, a watered down welfare reform vote was passed and the pound is trading strongly.

It's not really the story you hear reading the BBC news. It's almost like the gutter driven reporters like Mason were spooked by Labour almost getting parity with Reform.

Suppose one thing to look forward to is when the fascists take charge is to watch the press squeal while you try your best Bernie Gunther impression.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Rachel Reeves - unconfirmed story that she had just had a stand-up row with Lindsay Hoyle, for which he has since apologised.

It's possible...

[Boiler]

To respond to your points, Crabbs:

1, 2 - agree with fully. I remember Corbyn whimpering that he was being harassed and trying to run away from a reporter. Not a good look.

3. It would be an interesting clash with Frottage and perhaps, Jenrick by then ('cos it sure as hell ain't gonna be "Straight-As Kemi") but you just know she'll be portrayed as a "gobby, common Northern fishwife with no class", which will play well to Littlejohn's readers. Whilst we may enjoy her taking some posh boy with a PPE to bits across the despatch box (and I'd pay to see that) it'd be met with sniffy disdain elsewhere.

4. This is a good point and one often made by the Tories themselves: they've now had four* women leaders, Labour is yet to have one. It's about time they had one but I suggest most know the amount of shit and vitriol they'll face and will (wisely, IMO) say "Do I want this for me? Errr.... nope."

*some questions remain that two may have actually been badly-programmed androids.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've really lost interest in news being portrayed like a football summer transfer window.

Like I've followed very little of it, but what I know of the last few days is growth is around .7%, a watered down welfare reform vote was passed and the pound is trading strongly.

It's not really the story you hear reading the BBC news. It's almost like the gutter driven reporters like Mason were spooked by Labour almost getting parity with Reform.

Suppose one thing to look forward to is when the fascists take charge is to watch the press squeal while you try your best Bernie Gunther impression.

I think it's hard to see the welfare vote as anything but a debacle. But there's a whole heap of horseshit about how they'll never be able to take any tough decisions again. The majority remains nearly 170.

I think it's not impossible that the review of PIP finds that lots of people are getting it who it wasn't intended for, and that they can be supported for significantly less money. If that happens, then I hope enough of the PLP accept that and vote for it.

[Crabcakes]

3. … you just know she'll be portrayed as a "gobby, common Northern fishwife with no class", which will play well to Littlejohn's readers. Whilst we may enjoy her taking some posh boy with a PPE to bits across the despatch box (and I'd pay to see that) it'd be met with sniffy disdain elsewhere.

I don’t doubt it. But my follow-up question would be how many of the people who Littlejohn’s ancient sketches appeal to are likely to vote Labour anyway?

It’s like the pursuit of reform voters - at absolute best, all you’re doing is shifting the Overton window their way, and at worst alienating many others who are likely to be far more sympathetic.

[Youngian]

It’s like the pursuit of reform voters - at absolute best, all you’re doing is shifting the Overton window their way, and at worst alienating many others who are likely to be far more sympathetic.

The Farage hating coalition is a wide one that needs to get out and vote tactically in the next GE. They’re not going get behind Labour if it’s chasing Reform.

Last month Labour were agreeing with Farage that there’s too many people coming in the country. Now Labour’s agreeing with Nigel Farage contradicting himself that there aren’t enough people.

Bridget Phillipson says she wants more young people in UK to have children https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ary-labour

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think Rayner would help with Labour-Reform voters just through her background. Farage and co would have to be very careful.

Hopefully Starmer recanting the immigration speech is a sign we see less of that stuff, but there's now the mirror image problem with the left. How do you out populist a populist? Perhaps the Greens will fuck up on Defence and it'll resonate, but I think they could win lots of seats where they're second next time.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It’s like the pursuit of reform voters - at absolute best, all you’re doing is shifting the Overton window their way, and at worst alienating many others who are likely to be far more sympathetic.

The Farage hating coalition is a wide one that needs to get out and vote tactically in the next GE. They’re not going get behind Labour if it’s chasing Reform.

Last month Labour were agreeing with Farage that there’s too many people coming in the country. Now Labour’s agreeing with Nigel Farage contradicting himself that there aren’t enough people.

Bridget Phillipson says she wants more young people in UK to have children https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ary-labour

Unless those babies are going to start work while still in nappies, that's not really a contradiction. If people want to have kids but can't afford it, that's bad. You could also argue that there are social and political limits to the level of immigration that the public will accept. My take on this is that we've never built the homes necessary to house the level of immigration we've had. Labour's trying to boost supply of homes, quite rightly, but that would be fairly long term. In the meantime, Ed Davey and the Greens will likely hit the government with the old "immigration is positive, you nasty government" "but not those houses there" combination punch.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I know I say this a lot, but as someone said BTL on the Guardian, the problem with wealth taxes isn't just that they haven't raised the money proponents are saying anywhere they've been tried. It's that we'd be going to markets to borrow on the basis of taking in tax by this wealth tax, about which they're likely to be very skeptical. That's got a Liz Truss "tax cuts will pay for themselves" sort of vibe about it. Or indeed an SNP "extra spending to be paid for with more oil production" vibe.

I'm actually becoming less hostile to a wealth tax in itself. Could well bring in a few billion, and that would be useful. But it has to be backed up with conventional taxes on ordinary people. If the £24bn comes in, then we can give everyone a tax cut. Deal?

I suspect wealth tax, like Brexit, will be something that's always done wrong because "civil servants didn't believe in it".

[Oboogie]

At what point does the whip need to be withdrawn from Diane Abbott?

The Tweet she shared refers to an incident which happened two decades ago and is disputed. She refers to it in the present tense.
More serious is the use of the term Jewish Defence Force as there is no such organisation and she is clearly attempting to conflate the entire Jewish race with the actions of the IDF who, btw, are not all Jewish (population of Israel is about 80% Jewish but they all have to do National Service).
The IDF is not all Jewish
The IDF is not defending only Jews or all Jews
Not all Jews serve in the IDF
Not all Jews are Israeli

Diane Abbott has form, and curiously her 'mistakes' always seem to involve Jews, I've never heard her 'accidently' imply that all Irish people are terrorists, or all Muslims. Any suggestion that she doesn't know what the Israeli army is called, or forgot, is laughable.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Back in the day, she could be racist to Finnish nurses busting their arses working in the NHS.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/120 ... as-racist/

She apparently wasn't referring to race but to unemployment, which was why she referred to their race.

[Tubby Isaacs]

She forgot that if you're going to push the boat out further than "Israeli" you're supposed to say "Zionist", not come right out and say "Jewish".

[Oboogie]

She forgot that if you're going to push the boat out further than "Israeli" you're supposed to say "Zionist", not come right out and say "Jewish".

But renaming the IDF is quite the leap, what's next, calling Israel "Jewland"?

[Tubby Isaacs]

In shocking news, spending money on one thing means less of it is available for other things.

"Austerity 2" is a complete lie. How are these people different to eg the ERG at this point? "Nobody voted for Remain by the Back Door" and all that.

[Tubby Isaacs]

More Austerity 2.0. The impressed poster here is from the Chartered Institute of Housing. What does she know?

[Youngian]

Unless those babies are going to start work while still in nappies, that's not really a contradiction. If people want to have kids but can't afford it, that's bad. You could also argue that there are social and political limits to the level of immigration that the public will accept.

There's also a limited supply and increasing international demand for immigrant labour but hoping cheaper creches will reverse the global depopulation trend is unconvincing. Social democratic Finland has implemented some fine family friendly perks this country will never match but it hasn't moved increased the birthrate. And neither has Orban returned Hungary to replenishment rates despite huge perks for mothers.
Depopulation is happening and leaders need to be honest and embrace it instead of falling back on creepy baby boom drives that don't work. People will still have babies and want to emigrant, just not so many of them.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Family friendly policy doesn't do much, I agree. Being able to afford somewhere where your kid has a bedroom, surely that's more likely to help? It's a slow burner though. Unfortunately, apart from the Government, nobody seems to be interested even in that.

[Youngian]

Less people means less demand for housing and prices falling.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Net migration will probable settle down at something like the pre-Brexit level, but we've never got close to meeting the demand that (and existing pressures) create. The point isn't public spending (for which immigration is positive). We've never allowed the places to be built, and if the government fell, the attempt to meet demand that there is now would be scrapped by breakfast time, whether the new government is Farage or some sort of Green-Davey coalition.

It isn't just homes by any means. We've struggled to get anything done. It's roads (we have the right number of those already). It's new nuclear (we want renewables instead). It's renewables of any scale (just put them on car parks). It's high speed rail (reopen the Beeching line by my house, provided it's not too near my house). If we lack any collective will to deal with the population rise, I think it's reasonable to be cautious.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Indeed.

If the stakes weren't so high, I'd suggest Starmer announce he's appointed Rachel Maskell or Clive Lewis with a license to "abolish neoliberalism". See what happens then, There's a reason that business, who mostly hated Brexit, went along with it when Corbyn and McDonnell were the alternative.