Forum menu
Another own goal by Lammy this morning. Why put up an abrasive, gobby, aggressive, loud character like Alex Davies-Jones to take the heat on R4?
He needs to front up and say:
"Yes, it's a bloody nightmare. We're going to fix it. Given the size of the prison system there will always be a handful of releases in error. If people are too thick to realise that or won't acknowledge it in order to stir the pot, I can't do anything about that. What I can do is put in place a graded series of checks according to the severity of the original offence and this will happen as of next week. My quip about buying a suit was a plain error on my part, it was a stupid thing to say".
Or similar.
Putting out the minister for 'Eastenders style aggro in a Welsh accent' was counterproductive.
Wow, that’s how you heard that interview? Interesting. I thought Emma Barnett (who I usually rate highly) was just after blood not answers.
All media outlets seem to be happy to focus on aslym seekers who turn out to be criminals beyond all normal sense of proportion. And expect politicians to be doing the same. When politicians do focus on these cases, they can never do enough.
I fear you're underestimating how decimated the justice system is
Nope, I know what a state it is in. I am just interested in the data that would show whether the process issues are in the 'lighter' prisons/offenders or it is all, just for a sense of perspective and seriousness.
Wow, that’s how you heard that interview? Interesting. I thought Emma Barnett (who I usually rate highly) was just after blood not answers.
She was after blood once she realised she wasn't going to get any answers.
And to have someone being that abrasive and gobby whilst not actually answering any questions probably wound her up more. It put me back in mind of the last days of the Tories under Sunak when they sent some arrogant twerp out to shout over interviewers. I think Barnett did quite well not to say "oh just piss off, then, it's time for the sport".
So, yes, I totally heard it that way. Because that is how it was.
gobby
Are you male and from a "nice" part of the south east of England by any chance? She definitely sounded defensive and frustrated. But didn't sound "loud", "gobby", or "aggressive" to me.
Are you male and from a "nice" part of the south east of England by any chance?
Yes to the male bit and no to the geography.
From your previous posts on this and many other threads, I expected better of you than a lazy swipe like that.
Rishi Sunak is abrasive and gobby. As is Kemi Badenoch. As is Chris Philp. David Lammy is not. Nor is Keir Starmer. Of course there are other virtues and failings to pick up with everyone mentioned above.
I'm confused. I could be racist, sexist, regionalist or any variety of ist now. And I'm not even sure what my unidentifiable prejudice is based on.
Or maybe I just hear abrasive, gobby people as abrasive and gobby.
There's an argument rumbling on on this forum about pushback against folk who immediately go to the nuclear option and scream "RACIST!" when a bit of clumsy, muddled terminology pops out of someone's mouth. Thanks for enlightening me on what it feels like to be pitchforked and lazily caricatured.
👍
There's an argument rumbling on on this forum about pushback against folk who immediately go to the nuclear option and scream "RACIST!" when a bit of clumsy, muddled terminology pops out of someone's mouth. Thanks for enlightening me on what it feels like to be pitchforked and lazily caricatured.
I don't think you were called racist, I just think you were asked for clarification of your tone and what the meaning behind it was.
As a counter point to the claim that people are too quick to call racist, I think people are too quick to call, 'You just called me racist!'
Unfortunately racism is on the rise and a text based forum often loses the nuance of words. One person could write with a particular tone in mind, someone can read it with a different tone and get a completely different meaning.
People should be able to ask about what was said without resorting to the nuclear option of, 'You called me a racist!'
Interesting comments on the allegedly proposed EV per-mile tax.
Obviously they need a way to replace fuel duty for EVs but the stated system seems pretty daft. People will fit mileage blockers and also how will it discriminate between UK miles and abroad? I did nearly 4000 miles in Europe last year. They can FRO if they think I am paying the UK government 120 notes for that, when France already bent me over for toll road usage.
ANPR on major roads might be a better way to implement it, although I suppose it may have the effect of pushing traffic onto local roads.
The idea is being discussed, apparently. I'd hope those questions are part of the discussion.
I don't think you were called racist
I wasn't. It was heavily implied that I was sexist and held regional prejudice. I was merely drawing parallels with the folk who scream "racist" at the slightest thing.
In any case, the point is being lost already in posts of varying amounts of confusion.
The net effect for me is pretty minimal. I can't be offended by something so laughably lazy in any case. All it has done is reduce my respect for another poster (with whom I agree on a great many things) by a notch. 🤷♂️
Others can read your post. Only you know if her being welsh and a woman affected how you heard her, and the words you used to describe her. I'm not calling you anything.
All it has done is reduce my respect for another poster (with whom I agree on a great many things) by a notch.
If you stopped creating new accounts then I'd know for sure what we agree on! As it is, I think we agree on a great many thing, but it's very confusing. Why do you keep doing that? If you are. Burning old opinions? We're allowed to change our minds on things. I often don't agree with myself from yesterday, never mind years ago. The multiple accounts thing just makes people suspicious of you. Expect extra questions because of all that. No need to be churlish when people ask what you mean by your posts, and where you're coming from.
Interesting comments on the allegedly proposed EV per-mile tax.
This was trailed a lot before the election, with the Conservatives claiming it was already Labour policy. You'd hope they'd be looking into duty based on weight, or taxes based on miles, or more road tolls, and all the other options that might eventually replace current "charges" on road users that are based on fuel use and engine type/size. A future where drivers use the roads virtually tax free, while those who chose to either drive less or not at all subside them, isn't a sustainable one.
Last post from me on this mini thread derailment.
I'm not calling you anything.
You didn't. You heavily implied it.
Others can read your post.
As they can yours.
The multiple accounts thing
No idea what you mean. I don't have multiple accounts. Is this accusation a standard MO if some people don't like how a discussion is going?
No need to be churlish when people ask what you mean by your posts, and where you're coming from.
You didn't ask me what I meant by my post. You dressed an insinuation up as a question, though. As above, people can read what is there in black and white.
You have right of reply, obviously. But don't expect an answer. I'm drawing a line under this spat for myself.
I don't have multiple accounts.
In that case you're a new user (welcome to the forum, sorry for the suspicion) and I have no idea who you are, or your opinions, so asking you about you and your post to work out where you're coming from shouldn't seem odd to you.
CGT is already 22% for a 'normal' person
The "top rate" is 32% (but more normally 24% for higher rate tax payers) no matter how much it's paid on, whereas some people are paying 47% on their higher earnings. Before getting those workers to pay even more than 47%... or definitely before getting anyone further down the wage distribution to pay more, that 24% needs looking at. Harmonisation should be a long term goal, but slowly further decreasing the gap would do for now. I don't see why workers should be paying a higher rate of tax on their wages than those who get their earnings by owning things.
The CGT thing should be addressed, you should pay more tax on unearned wealth than earned.
Can't see the EV thing going anywhere yet, they will have to plug the fuel duty hole at some point although it's worth noting that's supposed to be an emissions tax and goes into general expenditure so doesn't fund the roads per se. At the moment I just can't see it's going to work, a mileage 'tax return' every year for EV drivers? Will be a nightmare manage and costly. If it's mileage based it's going to need some sort of 3rd party black box GPS linked recording but I can't see that going down well in the current climate.
Feels like they are throwing out all sorts of mad ideas to lessen the blow of whatever it is they are planning which I'm fairly sure no one is going to like very much. Interesting to see there have been flurry of reports / statements recently about the ballooning welfare state and the number of people of working age who are economically inactive. Be interesting to know where that's being driven from, right wing media demonising people in receipt of benefits or the government trying to set the scene for cuts in benefits?
No idea what you mean. I don't have multiple accounts.
You may be the victim of an ex-poster called dannyh who had a very similar posting style who went through a number of accounts after angrily flouncing during a discussion about brexit (I think). Or you may be Danny himself*, who knows? 🤷♂️
*danny if that is you FGS just say so. It’s very silly.
Be interesting to know where that's being driven from, right wing media demonising people in receipt of benefits or the government trying to set the scene for cuts in benefits?
An independent report commission by the government was published... a lot of it comes from that... so we can't blame just the media... some of this absolutely is "sparked" by this government.
Some good stuff in there... "hoping" more employers step up when it comes to assistance for workers isn't enough, there will need to be legislation about how employers can and should help people back to work. If that comes to anything, expect complaints for the "hands off government" right wing types.
Rishi Sunak is abrasive and gobby.
I don't think that's true at all. The only time I ever saw him anything other than mealy-mouthed and condescending was when he showed a bit of passion about hearing racist abuse, and the effect it had on him and his kids. That was after he was binned, and the first time I found him engaging. I totally disagree wirh his politics fwiw
Nope, I know what a state it is in. I am just interested in the data that would show whether the process issues are in the 'lighter' prisons/offenders or it is all, just for a sense of perspective and seriousness.
some data on the accidental releases, hard to be sure as the category violence is quite broad!
A third of them, 87, were in prison for crimes under the category of “violence against the person”. This is the largest group, but we don’t know from the data what the specific offences were.
The category covers everything from the threat of violence and common assault, through to more severe offences like grievous bodily harm or murder.
The guy who handed himself in today is in for fraud.
A third of them, 87, were in prison for crimes under the category of “violence against the person”. This is the largest group, but we don’t know from the data what the specific offences were.
Well, that's in line with people in the prison system as a whole... about a 1/3 are for what's classified as violent crimes. By the way... for violent and sexual offences, it's Brits that are more likely to be in prison for those offences... not foreign nationals.
A lower proportion of foreign nationals are in prison for violent and sexual offences than the overall population—27% and 14% compared with 29% and 17%, respectively. A higher proportion are in prison for drug offences (26% compared with 18%).
[ source ]
https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1986356984950493417
That'd be the politics of wanting to fix things then Fakehurst.
Are you sure about that Parachute Luke?
The Labour right are fetid.
some data on the accidental releases, hard to be sure as the category violence is quite broad!
Thanks, and I wonder what their terms were, i.e. if in for 12 months and let out early by mistake after 8 months not as bad as 25 years and left out after 8 months. Still a bit shocking that it happens at all though as can't be that hard to do the checks on who you are letting out on a given day.
Can assure Clive I'm one MP who has no desire to be associated with Mamdani at all. The politics that appeals to NYC would go down like a cup of cold sick in US Rust Belt states or in UK equivalents like North Durham.
Presumably the "Labour" MP for North Durham lacks the confidence to argue in favour of policies which are seen as the norm in much of Europe in what has traditionally been seen as a Labour heartland?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/06/europe-zohran-mamdani-policies-normal
How did the Labour Party fall into the hands of such inept and useless right-wingers (aka centrists)?
How did the Labour Party fall into the hands of such inept and useless right-wingers (aka centrists)?
Brexit. It put the wind right up the Labour Party when it realised some of the views held by its core voter base. They've still not come to terms with it and it has allowed people like McSweeney to present themselves as some kind of alchemist, electoral geniuses. When they are nothing of the sort.
Luke Akehurst should probably stop pontificating about the US Rust Belt without doing research. Mamdani occupies very similar political territory to Rashida Tlaib (Michigan), Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Summer Lee (Eastern Pennsylvania)...and that's just at the federal level.
Depicting Mamdani's policies (fair rent, cheap public transport, affordable groceries...) as appealing to only the bourgeois big city elite electorate is very silly. Probably as silly as suggesting British voters in Red Wall seats aren't concerned about those things too.
Brexit. It put the wind right up the Labour Party when it realised some of the views held by its core voter base. They've still not come to terms with it and it has allowed people like McSweeney to present themselves as some kind of alchemist, electoral geniuses. When they are nothing of the sort.
It was much earlier than that, the centralisation of power into labour head office during the Blair years was the biggest driver and laid the foundation.
It was much earlier than that, the centralisation of power into labour head office during the Blair years was the biggest driver and laid the foundation.
And yet Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader in 2015. 🤔
He was elected by the party members, and the head office and most of the plo worked against him from day one.
Depicting Mamdani's policies (fair rent, cheap public transport, affordable groceries...) as appealing to only the bourgeois big city elite electorate is very silly.
Well, quite.
Defies logic.
As said plenty of times the reason these people go the other way when voting is because their material conditions aren't really being met.
Hope sells better than hate - but it has to be on offer.
None of this is actually rocket science. It's just wealth determines the narrative as fact.
(There Is No Alternative.)
He was elected by the party members, and the head office and most of the plo worked against him from day one.
🙂
most of the plo worked against him from day one.
I thought the PLO were Corbyn's big mates? He went all the way to Tunis to lay flowers at their graveyard with the Black September murderers and everything.
And yet Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader in 2015. 🤔
Because quite simply the centrists blundered, something which they were perfectly happy to admit to at the time.
After over 20 years in control of the Labour Party the centrists became too cocky and relaxed about their grip on the party. This led to the astonishing decision to allow anyone with 3 quid to spare a vote in the leadership election. Over a hundred thousand took up the offer.
Committed centrists such as Margaret Beckett signed Jeremy Corbyn's leadership nomination papers because they were absolutely convinced that he stood zero chance of winning plus it created an illusion of tolerance and party democracy. Margaret Beckett later called herself "a moron" for signing Corbyn's nomination papers.
Corbyn easily winning the leadership election caused absolute chaos for the centrists but because they still had much of the control of the party's structures they were able to fight back and very seriously undermine his time as leader.
Lessons have been learnt and the centrists will never ever again risk losing control of the Labour Party. Which is why the party is doomed. Although I am sure they care about that as much as Nick Clegg cares about the damage he did to the Liberal Democrats.
Anyone who can remember the Blair years will remember the connection between New Labour, control freakery, and terms such as being "on-message"
He went all the way to Tunis to lay flowers at their graveyard with the Black September murderers and everything.
According to Benjamin Netanyahu, Corbyn denied it. I guess we should believe the 'most moral prime minister in the world' though.
Anyone who can remember the Blair years will remember the connection between New Labour, control freakery, and terms such as being "on-message"
Anyone who was a member of any local Labour branch will remember the frankly Kafkaesque levels of central control after the 2017 election defeat. It made the Blair years feel like the WI.
Anyone who was a member of any local Labour branch will remember the frankly Kafkaesque levels of central control after the 2017 election defeat.
I know you are not an honest contributor to political threads, but that is the most ridiculous and frankly idiotic claim made for a very long time
All I can remember from that period is recorded here on the Brexit threads - things like the "three-line whip" on the Article 50 vote which told me exactly where the party leader ship really stood on Brexit and I didn't like it. It was pretty authoritarian.
If there is one phrase which has come to characterize the nature of Tony Blair's government in the public perception, it has to be "control freaks" - shorthand for an obsession with taking command of all aspects of government business and with how these are portrayed in the media. The proliferation of "Tony's Cronies" in key positions, the obsessive approach to news management, the desperate efforts to manipulate the elections for the Welsh assembly and London Mayor - all proclaim deeply rooted insecurity which can be assuaged only by exerting strict control
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Control-Freaks-How-Labour-Gets/dp/1902301765
I know you are not an honest contributor to political threads
It must be a frightening world when anyone who disagrees with you is automatically dishonest.
😬
It must be a frightening world when anyone who disagrees with you is automatically dishonest.
What would you know about nickc's contributions Danny? You have only been on this forum for a couple of weeks or so!
"three-line whip"
Do you think Jeremy Corbyn invented the three-line whip ?
One of the primary criticism of Jeremy Corbyn was, with some justification, that he was a very "weak" leader, he couldn't even maintain discipline in his own cabinet FFS, now he is being accused of being some sort control freak! 🤣
All I can remember from that period is recorded here on the Brexit threads - things like the "three-line whip" on the Article 50 vote which told me exactly where the party leader ship really stood on Brexit and I didn't like it. It was pretty authoritarian.
I agree that the three line whip on brexit was a stupid move, but it wasn't characteristic of Corbyn's time as labour leader which would be more generally described as offering olive branches to people stabbing him in the front, for example he went on to allow Starmer to shape labours brexit strategy.
Is this some weird initiation thing for new members who dare to post on political threads?
Whoever this Danny character is, he must have ruffled a few feathers or pissed a few people off. No idea, really.
Nickc above pretty much stated that he was involved at a branch level in the Labour Party, post 2017 and gave his experience. If he's fibbing, then im the fool.
But, let's take him at face value, MSP outright accused him of lying. Ive read many of MSP's posts since joining (he makes a lot). That's enough to form an opinion.
Maybe I'm out of my depth here and swimming with the ideology sharks. It feels pretty pointless, TBH.
I'm happy to contribute on bike stuff from now on. Political stuff - I think I've had my warning. 😬
plot twist: Earnie IS Danny!
Political stuff - I think I've had my warning
Well done, at least you got that, it's a step above being ignored 😀
Whoever this Danny character is, he must have ruffled a few feathers or pissed a few people off. No idea, really.
Yeah whoever he is. It's always a bit of a mystery figuring out who he is this month. Although it generally becomes fairly obvious after he has posted about half a dozen posts.
And here's the funny thing, I don't think he has actually pissed off anyone, I can't imagine that he has ever received a permanent ban so I have no idea why he feels this reoccurring need to come back incognito, or at least attempt to. Bizarre!