Stop voting for fucking Tories

[I like neeps]

"...should be investigated..."

Three major water companies illegally discharged sewage hundreds of times last year on days when it was not raining, a BBC investigation suggests.

The practice, known as "dry spilling", is banned because it can lead to higher concentrations of sewage in waterways.

Thames, Wessex and Southern Water appear to have collectively released sewage in dry spills for 3,500 hours in 2022 - in breach of their permits.

Water UK, the industry body, said the spills "should be investigated".

The BBC requested the same data from the other water companies in England, which said they could not respond due to being under an Environment Agency (EA) criminal investigation.

Releasing sewage into rivers and seas is allowed in the UK to prevent pipe systems becoming overwhelmed - but it has to have been raining.

Without rainwater the sewage is likely to be less diluted - leading to build-ups of algae which produce toxins "that can be fatal to pets and pose a health risk to swimmers", says Dr Linda May, a water ecologist at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

Discharging in dry conditions is therefore illegal under environmental law.
.
Environment Secretary Therese Coffey told BBC News: 'It does seem extraordinary on the hottest day of the year that there may be releases. The EA is the regulator they are the people who do the detailed investigation of why that has happened."

So the three that responded all admit they have done it and should be investigated. All of the others are already under criminal investigation for it.

English water is an utterly broken system.

It's now pure ideology over public safety for the Tories... (and Labour who are also commited to the continued privatisation of taking our sh*t and depositing it in the nearest river and sending kids to schools are at a very real risk of collapse).

[Biffer]

Birmingham Council (Labour controlled since 2012) have issued a s. 114 Notice, meaning it is to all intents and purposes bankrupt. Only spending on essential services. Causes would appear to be

Equal pay liability for possible £1.1bn for failure to pay equally to men and women in comparable roles over a 13 year period, having already had to pay out £1bn over a decade ago (one would have hoped they'd learned their lesson first time around)

Costs of IT implementation fuck up - standard stuff.

Costs of adult social care, housing crisis and children's services , which have all gone up and up and up.

Edit: Plus whopping slashes in Government funding - I've seen 77.8% decrease quoted by a Birmingham Business School blog, dated 01 September 2023, analysing the hole.in the Council's finances, so they saw it coming.

Won't be the last Council of either colour to crash and burn, I fear.

So is capital expense on replacing RAAC buildings in schools an essential service?

[tabascoboy]

Audit chief criticises 'sticking plaster' approach to schools

The head of spending watchdog the National Audit Office has accused the government of taking a "sticking plaster approach" to carrying out essential maintenance on school buildings.

In an article for the Times, Gareth Davies said funding for the "unflashy but essential" job of maintaining buildings has been neglected.

Davies said a failure to bite the bullet of replacing RAAC in public buildings such as schools and hospitals "leads to poor value, with more money required for emergency measures or a sticking plaster approach".

Writing in the Times, Davies said "RAAC was an innovation once" and "it served its purpose for decades but the long-term risks it posed took too long to be properly addressed".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66713349

[sockwithaticket]

We see it tim and time again, their refusal to spend money pro-actively ends up costing more in the long run.

[Slick]

"...should be investigated..."

Three major water companies illegally discharged sewage hundreds of times last year on days when it was not raining, a BBC investigation suggests.

The practice, known as "dry spilling", is banned because it can lead to higher concentrations of sewage in waterways.

Thames, Wessex and Southern Water appear to have collectively released sewage in dry spills for 3,500 hours in 2022 - in breach of their permits.

Water UK, the industry body, said the spills "should be investigated".

The BBC requested the same data from the other water companies in England, which said they could not respond due to being under an Environment Agency (EA) criminal investigation.

Releasing sewage into rivers and seas is allowed in the UK to prevent pipe systems becoming overwhelmed - but it has to have been raining.

Without rainwater the sewage is likely to be less diluted - leading to build-ups of algae which produce toxins "that can be fatal to pets and pose a health risk to swimmers", says Dr Linda May, a water ecologist at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

Discharging in dry conditions is therefore illegal under environmental law.
.
Environment Secretary Therese Coffey told BBC News: 'It does seem extraordinary on the hottest day of the year that there may be releases. The EA is the regulator they are the people who do the detailed investigation of why that has happened."

So the three that responded all admit they have done it and should be investigated. All of the others are already under criminal investigation for it.

English water is an utterly broken system.

So is ours, theirs is actually more transparent

[Hal Jordan]

At least we now know why Tories were always photographed on site visits in hard hats and hi-viz.

[dpedin]

"...should be investigated..."

So the three that responded all admit they have done it and should be investigated. All of the others are already under criminal investigation for it.

English water is an utterly broken system.

So is ours, theirs is actually more transparent

It is very true that Scotland is far behind the levels of monitoring that they do in England. However our overall river water quality does appear to be significantly better - see attached.

https://www.hutton.ac.uk/blogs/scotland ... der-threat

Sea water and beaches is more difficult to assess - see attached

https://www.thenational.scot/news/20833 ... lls-south/

All drinking water in UK has to meet stringent regulations so there isn't really much difference in quality across the UK. However unlike the hard water found down in the south of England, Scottish water tends to be softer with less minerals resulting in less calcium/limescale build up and doesn't taste so metallic/chemically. I find that I cant really drink tap water when visiting my daughter in London and can understand why she buys bottled water.

The biggest difference is that in Scotland water bills are about 10-15% cheaper and investment is about 35% more per customer in infrastructure than in England but part of this is necessary given the geography of Scotland.

[Slick]

To be fair, that's an unusually balanced report from The National, although I do think it is letting Scottish Water and SG off far too lightly, we are still pumping in outrageous amounts of sewage into the sea around urban areas. The problem, as usual, in Scotland is that a good proportion of the population will just not countenance criticism of a nationalised company - I'm not including you here.

Re drinking water, couldn't agree more, I can't touch the stuff down south

[Sandstorm]

At least we now know why Tories were always photographed on site visits in hard hats and hi-viz.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Re drinking water, couldn't agree more, I can't touch the stuff down south

One might have a style you prefer, and something different might be weird for 1-2 weeks, but for most people they'd at minimum get used to the water of a locale.

And the defence by the water companies we should't blame them for the now because actually they've been shit for decades and couldn't fix it now if they wanted to isn't great as defences go, Kevin Sinfield would judge that defence harshly

[Hal Jordan]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims. What fraudulent means is not explained, but I wouldn't be shocked if it simply meant "unsuccessful", making advising a claimant in your capacity as their legal representative a crime.

Now, chuck the book at bent briefs, but anyone who doesn't think this Government is going down a very concerning route really needs to think again because they are getting proper fash.

Oh, and the name of the enforcement goons is the Professional Enabler's Task Force. Because the term enabling has no historical connotations at all...

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims.

What about lawyers who coach former PMs before an inquiry?

[Hal Jordan]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims.

What about lawyers who coach former PMs before an inquiry?

We pay their fees.

[Paddington Bear]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims. What fraudulent means is not explained, but I wouldn't be shocked if it simply meant "unsuccessful", making advising a claimant in your capacity as their legal representative a crime.

Now, chuck the book at bent briefs, but anyone who doesn't think this Government is going down a very concerning route really needs to think again because they are getting proper fash.

Oh, and the name of the enforcement goons is the Professional Enabler's Task Force. Because the term enabling has no historical connotations at all...

Fraudulent when discussing the actions of a practising solicitor is a well understood concept by those within the profession, so whilst I think the idea of a life term is disproportionate and clearly for a headline, the chances of going to prison for advising a client are zero. Those coaching migrants to lie were, or should have been, aware they were committing a criminal offence and really can’t complain if they end up with a few years inside

[fishfoodie]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims.

What about lawyers who coach former PMs before an inquiry?

Or lawyers who advise clients on how to evade UK taxes .....

[Hal Jordan]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims. What fraudulent means is not explained, but I wouldn't be shocked if it simply meant "unsuccessful", making advising a claimant in your capacity as their legal representative a crime.

Now, chuck the book at bent briefs, but anyone who doesn't think this Government is going down a very concerning route really needs to think again because they are getting proper fash.

Oh, and the name of the enforcement goons is the Professional Enabler's Task Force. Because the term enabling has no historical connotations at all...

Fraudulent when discussing the actions of a practising solicitor is a well understood concept by those within the profession, so whilst I think the idea of a life term is disproportionate and clearly for a headline, the chances of going to prison for advising a client are zero. Those coaching migrants to lie were, or should have been, aware they were committing a criminal offence and really can’t complain if they end up with a few years inside

I am well aware of the professional standards and as per my post, have no issues with punishing crooked members of the legal professions.

But I have absolutely no doubt that this Government, stacked with people who admire the likes of Orbam, wouldn't hesitate to lock up "lefty lawyers" if they thought they could get away with it.

[Paddington Bear]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims. What fraudulent means is not explained, but I wouldn't be shocked if it simply meant "unsuccessful", making advising a claimant in your capacity as their legal representative a crime.

Now, chuck the book at bent briefs, but anyone who doesn't think this Government is going down a very concerning route really needs to think again because they are getting proper fash.

Oh, and the name of the enforcement goons is the Professional Enabler's Task Force. Because the term enabling has no historical connotations at all...

Fraudulent when discussing the actions of a practising solicitor is a well understood concept by those within the profession, so whilst I think the idea of a life term is disproportionate and clearly for a headline, the chances of going to prison for advising a client are zero. Those coaching migrants to lie were, or should have been, aware they were committing a criminal offence and really can’t complain if they end up with a few years inside

I am well aware of the professional standards and as per my post, have no issues with punishing crooked members of the legal professions.

But I have absolutely no doubt that this Government, stacked with people who admire the likes of Orbam, wouldn't hesitate to lock up "lefty lawyers" if they thought they could get away with it.

Right but what fraudulent means is pretty clear in this case - there’s a very good argument for solicitors who encourage their clients to lie to the authorities to go to prison. Obviously a life sentence is absurd.

If the government is cracking down on ‘lefties’ in the legal profession they have, it is fair to say, an awful lot of work to do

[Hal Jordan]

Me, for one.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims.

What about lawyers who coach former PMs before an inquiry?

Or lawyers who advise clients on how to evade UK taxes .....

move to Ireland you mean?

[fishfoodie]

What about lawyers who coach former PMs before an inquiry?

Or lawyers who advise clients on how to evade UK taxes .....

move to Ireland you mean?

I was thinking more Geoffrey Cox & the Virgin Islands; far outside the EU reporting & anti-money laundering measures that Ireland has to comply with.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Or lawyers who advise clients on how to evade UK taxes .....

move to Ireland you mean?

I was thinking more Geoffrey Cox & the Virgin Islands; far outside the EU reporting & anti-money laundering measures that Ireland has to comply with.

Certainly the pro Brexit groups suddenly had access to a lot more operational capability and money when the EU started talking about money laundering, and that impetus was taken into the referendum campaign. Hard to say why some wealthy individuals were suddenly interested in leaving.

That said unless you're a blithering idiot you can drive a horse and carriage through AML regs around the world, we're just lucky many criminals are indeed howl at the moon stupid.

[C69]

So the RAAC crisis goes on and on new info that The Govt refused to fund remedial work.
Well this is certainly calculated neglect.
Utterly useless cnuts

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Once that damn went down a few years back it might, to some people, have been a bit of a warning we should be thinking more about building standards, Grenfell too might to some have been a bit of a wake up call. Even more so when we know we built a lot of cheap shit post WWII with the idea it'd be replaced in the near future not we'd still have an awful lot of the stock left all these decades later.

In reality everyone involved in setting budgets has hoped the problem that is a problem would't be a problem whilst they were setting budgets and would carry forwards to be someone else's problem. It is telling of those asking for a leadership role if they want to pass the buck or deal with the problem

[dpedin]

Jenrick has stood up in Parliament and proposed jail terms of "up to life imprisonment" for lawyers who coach migrants in fraudulent claims.

What about lawyers who coach former PMs before an inquiry?

Knighthoods ... to keep them quiet as they will know where all the bodies are buried.

[Biffer]

Once that damn went down a few years back it might, to some people, have been a bit of a warning we should be thinking more about building standards, Grenfell too might to some have been a bit of a wake up call. Even more so when we know we built a lot of cheap shit post WWII with the idea it'd be replaced in the near future not we'd still have an awful lot of the stock left all these decades later.

In reality everyone involved in setting budgets has hoped the problem that is a problem would't be a problem whilst they were setting budgets and would carry forwards to be someone else's problem. It is telling of those asking for a leadership role if they want to pass the buck or deal with the problem

These things only affect poor people so there's no rush.

[Paddington Bear]

Not my area but was reading that RAAC is still being used in new builds and has been for a long time. Certainly there’s the fairly well known issues with estates in Donegal, but sounds like we’re sleepwalking into a car crash

[petej]

Once that damn went down a few years back it might, to some people, have been a bit of a warning we should be thinking more about building standards, Grenfell too might to some have been a bit of a wake up call. Even more so when we know we built a lot of cheap shit post WWII with the idea it'd be replaced in the near future not we'd still have an awful lot of the stock left all these decades later.

In reality everyone involved in setting budgets has hoped the problem that is a problem would't be a problem whilst they were setting budgets and would carry forwards to be someone else's problem. It is telling of those asking for a leadership role if they want to pass the buck or deal with the problem

These things only affect poor people so there's no rush.

Grenfell itself isn't the issue as poor people dying is fine. The issue is the property owners in flats with cladding which they can't sell, are unsafe, remediation costs and cost more to insure/maintain. Unfortunately for the government, these people talk and are voters.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Once that damn went down a few years back it might, to some people, have been a bit of a warning we should be thinking more about building standards, Grenfell too might to some have been a bit of a wake up call. Even more so when we know we built a lot of cheap shit post WWII with the idea it'd be replaced in the near future not we'd still have an awful lot of the stock left all these decades later.

In reality everyone involved in setting budgets has hoped the problem that is a problem would't be a problem whilst they were setting budgets and would carry forwards to be someone else's problem. It is telling of those asking for a leadership role if they want to pass the buck or deal with the problem

These things only affect poor people so there's no rush.

Grenfell itself isn't the issue as poor people dying is fine. The issue is the property owners in flats with cladding which they can't sell, are unsafe, remediation costs and cost more to insure/maintain. Unfortunately for the government, these people talk and are voters.

What Grenfell tells us other than consideration in advance of safe materials to use, lack of monitoring of domestic/worldwide standards and a desire to use cheap materials all presenting as problems, that even if funding for improvements were found there's not enough people to do the actual work, because those doing the work don't understand how to build or renovate to suitable standards, because someone, say the government, has never seen fit to require suitable training/standards for workers in the construction industry.

[_Os_]

Once that damn went down a few years back it might, to some people, have been a bit of a warning we should be thinking more about building standards, Grenfell too might to some have been a bit of a wake up call. Even more so when we know we built a lot of cheap shit post WWII with the idea it'd be replaced in the near future not we'd still have an awful lot of the stock left all these decades later.

In reality everyone involved in setting budgets has hoped the problem that is a problem would't be a problem whilst they were setting budgets and would carry forwards to be someone else's problem. It is telling of those asking for a leadership role if they want to pass the buck or deal with the problem

Anything regarding property is absolutely rammed with regulations. Much of it is total bullshit that can suck up weeks and months of time all for little purpose, pages and pages of documentation no one will ever read.

You can see what the outcome of this is by just looking around. I do not advise trying to buying a plot of land, trying to get planning permission, then building the house. For an ordinary person it is essentially impossible or no money saver at all, which is why very few people in the UK do it, "look another new self build" is not something that ever happens. A lot of the regulation is simply there to keep smaller players out of the market.

What are the mountain of regulation + big house builders delivering? It's mostly rubbish both aesthetically and structurally. My bet would be most people in the UK would select "build more Tudor/Victoria/Edwardian style buildings" if given the option, what they're getting isn't that. A lot of it is SIPS/CLT constructed because that is cheaper, they're cheap wooden houses with a brickwork shell that's a facade, lifespan is 60 years. Wooden houses in a wet country, doubtful you'll be able to get a mortgage on a lot of these by the end of the century.

[tabascoboy]

They really make no effort at all with their deflections...



Sunak claims that Starmer never mentioned the issue of school buildings in his education speech this summer. Factcheck: false.

[SaintK]

They really make no effort at all with their deflections...



Sunak claims that Starmer never mentioned the issue of school buildings in his education speech this summer. Factcheck: false.

But but but, according to N0 10

“PM was talking about RAAC, and there has been new information recently. Starmers speech did not reference RAAC once.”

So there!

[C T]

They really make no effort at all with their deflections...



Sunak claims that Starmer never mentioned the issue of school buildings in his education speech this summer. Factcheck: false.

But but but, according to N0 10

“PM was talking about RAAC, and there has been new information recently. Starmers speech did not reference RAAC once.”

So there!

If only Starmer had mentioned RAAC specifically, then Sunak would have been all over it. Silly Starmer.

[tabascoboy]

But Labour...!

Average capital spending on schools is 26% lower in real terms than in the mid-2000s and around *50%* below the peak reached in 2010 (Building Schools for the Future).

[Simian]

They really make no effort at all with their deflections...



Sunak claims that Starmer never mentioned the issue of school buildings in his education speech this summer. Factcheck: false.

But but but, according to N0 10

“PM was talking about RAAC, and there has been new information recently. Starmers speech did not reference RAAC once.”

So there!

Jesus. Even by Tory standards that’s pathetic.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The issue coming out of Grenfell was hardly just cladding, mostly in fact it's not cladding, and probably most of the issues with the cheap post war crap we built perhaps starting to catch up with us isn't RAAC. Frankly any attempt to just make it about RAAC is an attempt to deflect from the true size of the problem

[fishfoodie]

The issue coming out of Grenfell was hardly just cladding, mostly in fact it's not cladding, and probably most of the issues with the cheap post war crap we built perhaps starting to catch up with us isn't RAAC. Frankly any attempt to just make it about RAAC is an attempt to deflect from the true size of the problem

Grenfell was like a lot of the shit happening. It highlights the gutting of public services, & what happens when there's little to no threat of a building inspector, or tax inspector, or some other hard working public servant turning up & closing down of the site, or business, & the levying of a huge fine.

The Tories love to rage against Big Government, but it was Big Government that kept them out of trouble a lot of the time.

[fishfoodie]

Britain is a nation re-embracing pragmatism. Boris Johnson is out of parliament. So is Nadine Dorries, his Saint Paul. The Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer is elevating politicians of the centre ground in his cabinet-in-waiting.

Scotland is becoming less of a one party state. Tony Blair is no longer persona non grata. At discreet intervals, the UK government makes some kind of accommodation with the EU: a deal on scientific research funding might be next. In 2019, Britain had to choose between Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Next time, voters will have their pick of adenoidal but meticulous technocrats in Rishi Sunak and Starmer. When the principal complaint about its leaders is a lack of charisma and grand vision, a country is normalising.

At amazing speed, the UK has become pragmatic again. By this, I don’t mean that all its policies are wise, only that those behind them are conscientious adults who know that government is about trade-offs and half-loaves. For comparison, the spread of plausible outcomes at the next US election includes another Donald Trump administration. In France, extremists won’t have the twice-elected Emmanuel Macron to contend with. Even in Germany, which avoided the worst of the populist wave, Alternative für Deutschland is now the second-best polling party. (Equivalent parties poll in single digits in Britain.)

What can the world learn from the UK’s political cleansing? First, parliamentary systems fail fast. When the head of government has no direct mandate, it is simple and legitimate for lawmakers to remove them. Liz Truss was cashiered in all of 50 days.

Second, don’t be choosy about your saviours. Sunak and Starmer aren’t far-sighted moralists. One went along with Johnson until almost the end. The other campaigned to make Corbyn prime minister. But by doing so, each had more “permission” to change their parties than a life-long liberal would ever have had.

The most important lesson, however, is almost too distressing to state baldly. In order to turn against radical politics, a nation has to suffer quite tangibly from it. Britain is unique in that it didn’t just vote for an unconventional individual but for an unconventional project. In the form of Brexit, it has put post-liberal politics into direct effect to a degree that is rare among mature democracies.

The far-right forever stalks the French Fifth Republic because it has never been tested to destruction in office. Trump, too, though he became president, was stymied by a Democratic House of Representatives within two years, and by his own inattention to detail from day one. Even the populists who govern Italy have to reckon with that polity’s fragmented nature.

Brexit is different: a specific, discrete venture, enacted in full. One in three voters now think it was a good idea. I don’t suggest the disillusioned majority will reverse the decision any time soon. (That wouldn’t be pragmatic.) But they are inoculated against anything – leftist, rightist or hard-to-place – that smells of grand visions, easy answers, personality-led demagoguery. Even on the airwaves, the faux men-of-the-people and undergraduate communists who grifted so well in the Johnson-Corbyn years are less and less heard from. No, a nation is adamant: we’re not doing this anymore.

“You cannot always start from scratch,” said Herzog & de Meuron at the opening of Tate Modern in 2000. For a pragmatic nation at maybe its most pragmatic ever point, that was a statement of the obvious. A generation on, it stands out as a warning, and one being absorbed too late.

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/202 ... tic-again/

[JM2K6]

Lmao at that characterisation of Sunak. Jesus Christ.

[C69]

Britain is a nation re-embracing pragmatism. Boris Johnson is out of parliament. So is Nadine Dorries, his Saint Paul. The Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer is elevating politicians of the centre ground in his cabinet-in-waiting.

Scotland is becoming less of a one party state. Tony Blair is no longer persona non grata. At discreet intervals, the UK government makes some kind of accommodation with the EU: a deal on scientific research funding might be next. In 2019, Britain had to choose between Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Next time, voters will have their pick of adenoidal but meticulous technocrats in Rishi Sunak and Starmer. When the principal complaint about its leaders is a lack of charisma and grand vision, a country is normalising.

At amazing speed, the UK has become pragmatic again. By this, I don’t mean that all its policies are wise, only that those behind them are conscientious adults who know that government is about trade-offs and half-loaves. For comparison, the spread of plausible outcomes at the next US election includes another Donald Trump administration. In France, extremists won’t have the twice-elected Emmanuel Macron to contend with. Even in Germany, which avoided the worst of the populist wave, Alternative für Deutschland is now the second-best polling party. (Equivalent parties poll in single digits in Britain.)

What can the world learn from the UK’s political cleansing? First, parliamentary systems fail fast. When the head of government has no direct mandate, it is simple and legitimate for lawmakers to remove them. Liz Truss was cashiered in all of 50 days.

Second, don’t be choosy about your saviours. Sunak and Starmer aren’t far-sighted moralists. One went along with Johnson until almost the end. The other campaigned to make Corbyn prime minister. But by doing so, each had more “permission” to change their parties than a life-long liberal would ever have had.

The most important lesson, however, is almost too distressing to state baldly. In order to turn against radical politics, a nation has to suffer quite tangibly from it. Britain is unique in that it didn’t just vote for an unconventional individual but for an unconventional project. In the form of Brexit, it has put post-liberal politics into direct effect to a degree that is rare among mature democracies.

The far-right forever stalks the French Fifth Republic because it has never been tested to destruction in office. Trump, too, though he became president, was stymied by a Democratic House of Representatives within two years, and by his own inattention to detail from day one. Even the populists who govern Italy have to reckon with that polity’s fragmented nature.

Brexit is different: a specific, discrete venture, enacted in full. One in three voters now think it was a good idea. I don’t suggest the disillusioned majority will reverse the decision any time soon. (That wouldn’t be pragmatic.) But they are inoculated against anything – leftist, rightist or hard-to-place – that smells of grand visions, easy answers, personality-led demagoguery. Even on the airwaves, the faux men-of-the-people and undergraduate communists who grifted so well in the Johnson-Corbyn years are less and less heard from. No, a nation is adamant: we’re not doing this anymore.

“You cannot always start from scratch,” said Herzog & de Meuron at the opening of Tate Modern in 2000. For a pragmatic nation at maybe its most pragmatic ever point, that was a statement of the obvious. A generation on, it stands out as a warning, and one being absorbed too late.

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/202 ... tic-again/

That is utter bollox. A terrible read, poorly written and overly verbose.
The analysis is just wrong and it makes so many assumptions.
The so called journalist needs a kick in the balls.

[I like neeps]

Britain is a nation re-embracing pragmatism. Boris Johnson is out of parliament. So is Nadine Dorries, his Saint Paul. The Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer is elevating politicians of the centre ground in his cabinet-in-waiting.

Scotland is becoming less of a one party state. Tony Blair is no longer persona non grata. At discreet intervals, the UK government makes some kind of accommodation with the EU: a deal on scientific research funding might be next. In 2019, Britain had to choose between Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Next time, voters will have their pick of adenoidal but meticulous technocrats in Rishi Sunak and Starmer. When the principal complaint about its leaders is a lack of charisma and grand vision, a country is normalising.

At amazing speed, the UK has become pragmatic again. By this, I don’t mean that all its policies are wise, only that those behind them are conscientious adults who know that government is about trade-offs and half-loaves. For comparison, the spread of plausible outcomes at the next US election includes another Donald Trump administration. In France, extremists won’t have the twice-elected Emmanuel Macron to contend with. Even in Germany, which avoided the worst of the populist wave, Alternative für Deutschland is now the second-best polling party. (Equivalent parties poll in single digits in Britain.)

What can the world learn from the UK’s political cleansing? First, parliamentary systems fail fast. When the head of government has no direct mandate, it is simple and legitimate for lawmakers to remove them. Liz Truss was cashiered in all of 50 days.

Second, don’t be choosy about your saviours. Sunak and Starmer aren’t far-sighted moralists. One went along with Johnson until almost the end. The other campaigned to make Corbyn prime minister. But by doing so, each had more “permission” to change their parties than a life-long liberal would ever have had.

The most important lesson, however, is almost too distressing to state baldly. In order to turn against radical politics, a nation has to suffer quite tangibly from it. Britain is unique in that it didn’t just vote for an unconventional individual but for an unconventional project. In the form of Brexit, it has put post-liberal politics into direct effect to a degree that is rare among mature democracies.

The far-right forever stalks the French Fifth Republic because it has never been tested to destruction in office. Trump, too, though he became president, was stymied by a Democratic House of Representatives within two years, and by his own inattention to detail from day one. Even the populists who govern Italy have to reckon with that polity’s fragmented nature.

Brexit is different: a specific, discrete venture, enacted in full. One in three voters now think it was a good idea. I don’t suggest the disillusioned majority will reverse the decision any time soon. (That wouldn’t be pragmatic.) But they are inoculated against anything – leftist, rightist or hard-to-place – that smells of grand visions, easy answers, personality-led demagoguery. Even on the airwaves, the faux men-of-the-people and undergraduate communists who grifted so well in the Johnson-Corbyn years are less and less heard from. No, a nation is adamant: we’re not doing this anymore.

“You cannot always start from scratch,” said Herzog & de Meuron at the opening of Tate Modern in 2000. For a pragmatic nation at maybe its most pragmatic ever point, that was a statement of the obvious. A generation on, it stands out as a warning, and one being absorbed too late.

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk/202 ... tic-again/

That is utter bollox. A terrible read, poorly written and overly verbose.
The analysis is just wrong and it makes so many assumptions.
The so called journalist needs a kick in the balls.

Janan Ganesh is Gideon Osbourne's chosen biohrapher and a total psycophant. An ex think tank researcher. He's less a journalist and more a campaigner.