[Tubby Isaacs]

With Trump reneging today on a bazillion quids worth of digital cooperation, Trump has, yet again, confirmed that the US has no interest in being either a partner or an ally, by any measure. It is a dead duck - that or a country willing to accept hormone-laced road kill.

EEA Membership, as initially advocated by many Leavers, is shaping up for the UK like the only alternative to absolute isolation.

Maybe Starmer could do that deal during the peak roundabout painting season while the gammon are otherwise distracted.

The EU aren't going to be interested in that, seeing that there's a strong likelihood that the next government immediately pulls out.

And there's the not inconsiderable political problem that all of us here said the EEA was "fax democracy" when we were campaigning to stay in the EU.

[Tubby Isaacs]

We're back in Erasmus. This will earn the government a bump of about 2 votes, but by 2029, there may be a decent overall story to tell about re-engagement with the EU.

Talking of the EU, this would be nice if it held.

[mattomac]

Probably find a reason not to hold it.

[mattomac]

Not sure how this changes the NEC as outlined that much as long as the block voting held mostly last time out. Then again BBC analysis on essay mills seemed to suggest Universities were shit at dealing with it and all degrees were worth shit all based on one student and a former lecturer. Someone who sits on countless disciplinary panels as a representative it didn't seem that reflective.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3wdv7rg67o

[Tubby Isaacs]

This stuff does my nut in. I don't mean to pick on Jo Mitchell here, but he's an interesting example of what I'm talking about.

It's unarguable that Labour has pleased very few people. But are they really going all in on Kippers? How does rejoining Erasmus fit into that? Planning reform? Workers rights? That's just the last couple of days. Or, we might say, the Budget? Which is where Jo Mitchell is interesting. He was reasonably complementary about the Budget. He's perfectly aware that it wasn't a Kipper budget. So where does this "politically all in" come from?

Did they not mention any of these things? Of course they do. What's happened is that lots of people in the left media and social media don't care about any of this stuff. Stuff that never happens gets more attention because it might have happened, and someone "failed to deny" it. That the "they're a bunch of Kippers" is the default for Mitchell when he's talking more generally than his specialism is very telling. He must know at one level this isn't fair- I presume "politically" is supposed to cover the dissonance, but that doesn't really allow the role that he and others actively have played in this situation.

What does Labour do? Take a hammering in May, most likely. Probably change leader, and emphasize other things. I'm sceptical that a new leader comes in and cancels all the Mahmood-Starmer stuff on immigration. And hope the economy picks up. But I wonder if the electorate's become like the French electorate. Lots of strong views, with reforming anything being politically unthinkable.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Here's an example. Very little thanks will head the government's way if it does indeed hold its nerve, and the growth will take a while to come.

And if "wonk" bluesky is anything like left politics twitter, any changes made to it will be regarded as a terrible betrayal because it fits a broader narrative they've already decided on. Maybe it won't be like that.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is interesting. Reducing this figure would, if I understood it correctly, make investment look like better value. Of course the government would still have to fund the investment, but it should help the case be made in government.

This rate has been reviewed regularly, including in the recent past, so there's no guarantee it changes.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Interesting thread here. The combination of (some, not much) extra money from central government, the new buses act and Andy Burnham's political skills seem to be paying off in extra bus journeys in Greater Manchester. I think Labour generally is well-served by its regional mayors, and I can see others achieving similar results.

[The Weeping Angel]

This stuff does my nut in. I don't mean to pick on Jo Mitchell here, but he's an interesting example of what I'm talking about.

It's unarguable that Labour has pleased very few people. But are they really going all in on Kippers? How does rejoining Erasmus fit into that? Planning reform? Workers rights? That's just the last couple of days. Or, we might say, the Budget? Which is where Jo Mitchell is interesting. He was reasonably complementary about the Budget. He's perfectly aware that it wasn't a Kipper budget. So where does this "politically all in" come from?

Did they not mention any of these things? Of course they do. What's happened is that lots of people in the left media and social media don't care about any of this stuff. Stuff that never happens gets more attention because it might have happened, and someone "failed to deny" it. That the "they're a bunch of Kippers" is the default for Mitchell when he's talking more generally than his specialism is very telling. He must know at one level this isn't fair- I presume "politically" is supposed to cover the dissonance, but that doesn't really allow the role that he and others actively have played in this situation.

What does Labour do? Take a hammering in May, most likely. Probably change leader, and emphasize other things. I'm sceptical that a new leader comes in and cancels all the Mahmood-Starmer stuff on immigration. And hope the economy picks up. But I wonder if the electorate's become like the French electorate. Lots of strong views, with reforming anything being politically unthinkable.

I see a lot of that on Bluesky.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah. "They only care about immigration", say people who keep telling you they only care about immigration.

[The Weeping Angel]

Yeah. "They only care about immigration", say people who keep telling you they only care about immigration.

It's partially a by product of what's happening in America.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Jez Left, having banged on about the need for industrial policy for years, purports to be shocked that this can involve money going to people we don't like. So it's actually bad, or something.

Equity stake" is a misdirection. It's not a small company looking for venture capital. The benefit to the state is in the economic activity that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Sikka knows this as well as anyone. Could the Government have paid less? Who knows? I do know that they copped a load of criticism for not paying out to a firm to invest in biotech on Merseyside. Perhaps he could share with us his idea for alternative projects and how much Government money that would involve.

I've noticed Sikka does this stuff with lots of issues. Something about house building in London (which has become stuck) was met with "why can't they just take lower profits?" There's no sense that people don't have to invest if they don't want to.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This sounds reasonable. But can't somebody come up with better branding than "restore pride"?

Some of England’s most-deprived councils to get funding boost in new deal
Manchester, Bradford and outer London boroughs among those to receive increases ministers hope will ‘restore pride’
Some of England’s most-deprived councils will receive a funding boost under a new three-year local government deal which prioritises urban areas with high social needs at the expense of affluent places in the leafy south-east.

Manchester, Birmingham, Luton, Bradford, Coventry, Derby and outer London boroughs such as Haringey and Enfield will receive big spending power increases under what ministers have described as a fairer system that will “restore pride and opportunity in left-behind places”.

Some councils here are unhappy about Enfield and Haringey getting more money. Those are the places with famously leafy Tottenham and Edmonton in them. My understanding is that being what we used to call "inner city" while being actually in Outer London has not been a particularly cushy funding deal. It's not very good for Herefordshire, mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... n-new-deal

[Youngian]

Equity stake" is a misdirection. It's not a small company looking for venture capital. The benefit to the state is in the economic activity that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

What’s unreasonable about asking for a return to the taxpayer from a multimillionaire signing on for corporate income support?
It doesn’t mean the state uses their stake to take the shirt from the needy firm’s back. Which Radcliffe probably would in order to invest in failing company.