Mailwatch(ed) Forum

We're doing very well on Net Zero and Reeves has provided it with lots of investment. I'm not sure that a cut there is particularly bad. Apart from the politics who'll talk like Starmer's basically the same as Farage, Transport hasn't had the same investment, and cutting that would be bad.

Boiler wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 10:51 am Trivial I know, but <a> I'd be happier if it was just "British Railways" (none of this Johnson-style boosterism) and <b> the chosen livery didn't look like a GB News strap/lower third...

From Wiki:
The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily, daughter of Edward IV of England, and James, son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee".

"Great" in this sense means "large" rather than "very good".

I see no mention of Boris Johnson or "boosterism".

In astonishing news, the Guardian (Heather Stewart, one of the good ones) has an article suggesting Rachel Reeves is actually OK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ing-uk-plc

Comments are a mixed bag, but there's very little interest in actual policy on eg devolution. There's actually quite a bit happening, at least in the areas with metro mayors.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ion-mayors

Can we have more Heather Stewart and less Owen Jones, Aditya Chakraborty and Andy Beckett please?

There's a valid criticism of the over reliance on metro mayors. I'm in an area that doesn't have one. Even though the council is pretty efficient (luckily elected before Reform were properly a thing), it's a fairly rural unitary. In terms of economic development, I'm not sure what it could do. We're party of the West Midlands for statistics, and have a handy train line to Birmingham, but we don't really fit. From where I'm standing, concentrating on bigger conurbations is a reasonable priority.

This is all above my pay grade, but weren't we assured that tech giants would just completely ignore what Starmer said, so it was necessary for legislation? I think Starmer may be on to something with this approach here. Tech isn't all Trumper by any means, but it's libertarian, and may look elsewhere for investment opportunities if it feels like bans are heavy handed. Having said, that if this isn't meaningful by Apple, and others don't follow, it's time for legislation.

This is respectable progress. Shame that the media makes sure nobody hears about it.

Perhaps if they'd just done this and not let Shabana run amok, the Government would be more popular. I accept the political necessity to reduce boat crossings, but Shabana could have jumped off the train at the last station rather than ploughing it through the station buffers.

John Healey has resigned.

Oh shit.

Well I’m sure populist Andy will increase Defence spending.

What's prompted that?

Obviously ministerial resignations are never a good look but this might not be such a disaster a) defence spending does need to be prioritised in a way it hasn't for decades, b) I've never been particularly impressed with John Healy and, if the rumours are true, it means promotion for the much more impressive Al Carns.

We shall see.

I’m increasingly coming to the view that governing successfully to re-construct the UK after the destruction of 14 Austerity/Brexit/Pandemic mismanagement & corruption - flavoured years of Tory rule is all but an impossible job. This is particularly the case when you remember that the Labour government has effectively hamstrung itself with that pledge not to increase Income Tax, NI, or VAT for the duration of this term of government.

It’s now clear that an immediate and substantial increase in the defence budget is an urgent imperative. The Tories know this - Badenoch used every one of her six PMQs on it yesterday - and there is now going to be almost unbearable pressure on Starmer & Reeves to do better than the bout to be published Defence Spending Plan.

I just wonder whether an increase in income tax, but one strictly hypothecated on meeting defence expenditure requirements might now be just about politically acceptable, if not exactly popular.

A replacement for Healy? Luke Pollard or Al Carns would seem to be the obvious candidates, but they’d have to get to grips with what what John Healy apparently cannot.

I think the problem, as lots of the wonk types have said, was accepting Hunt's trap on the NI cuts.

The trouble with hypothecated income tax is that it's basically bullshit. Lots of spending will go up. The Tories will just say it's paying for benefits, and it will have a point.

Reeves could do worse than raise capital gains tax like Streeting suggested. That's a fair bit of extra money. If Burnham doesn't give it all away to the Ritz.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2026 2:09 pm A replacement for Healy? Luke Pollard or Al Carns would seem to be the obvious candidates, but they’d have to get to grips with what what John Healy apparently cannot.

I think anyone who's a candidate would want to sit tight, at least to see if there's going to be a change of leadership. Starmer's got a stench of death at the moment.

I think Burnham (or whoever) won't want to move too many people. So one of those would probably keep the job.

Burnham isn't really that different to Starmer.

Time to get rid of the Triple Lock? Would break a manifesto promise, of course.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2026 3:54 pm Time to get rid of the Triple Lock? Would break a manifesto promise, of course.

Oh definitely. Will Starmer do it? Not on your nelly!

Remember the reaction to Winter fuel...

Yeah, but this is serious money, worth a backlash. Though I wish they'd stuck to their guns on winter fuel.

Scrapping the triple lock would put winter fuel in the shade, political suicide.
Keir Starmer, granny starver.