No10’s account is incredible.
I held Developed Vetting for nearly ten years and spent three years at the heart of the Cabinet Office. I have never heard of a Developed Vetting denial being overruled. Here’s why…🧵
www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
There is a pattern here. Both Chris Wormald and Olly Robbins appointed by this Government. Both sacked by press release when Starmer under pressure. Robbins may have approved Mandelson but it’s not credible that he acted alone w/o instruction from No10.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...
One day 🇪🇺🇬🇧
This requires a full investigation and possibly criminal charges
Gorgeous views from Hampton Poyle back towards Kidlington. Love campaigning at this time of year 💛
Congratulations on your recycling diligence everyone!
Introducing kerbside glass recycling in Cherwell has certainly made it easier too!
Astonishing that Labour can't even field a full slate - only two years ago they were claiming they could win here in the General Election. But it does make it clear that only the Lib Dems can beat the Conservatives and Reform here!
Five - it's a double vacancy in Bicester West
This is glaring sign of policy failure (and no they aren't all students)
Quote from Ed Davey which reads: “This is a grave and era-defining moment for the world. Donald Trump is making wilder and increasingly concerning threats by the hour. “If Trump follows through with this, Keir Starmer must immediately recall Parliament. The Prime Minister must also withdraw US access to UK bases now. “MPs must be given a chance to hold the Government to account and prevent the UK from being complicit in war crimes and breaches of international law.”
If Trump follows through with his wilder and increasingly concerning threats, Keir Starmer must immediately recall Parliament.
The Prime Minister must also withdraw US access to UK bases now.
This is a grave and era-defining moment for the world.
Cuddly 😍
You would think. And yet...
All that said I am looking forward to how efficient I am when I don't have to do it 🤣
And just think, Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage wanted us to join this madness.
I get a lot of people asking me how I carry my babies on my back to campaign - it's an absolute game changer in terms of ergonomics and v easy once you get the hang of it - here is a video showing the method I use (I haven't dropped one yet! But please get someone to spot you the first few times!)
Donald Trump's latest shocking threats against Iran would amount to war crimes.
The UK cannot be complicit. Keir Starmer must withdraw US access to UK air bases now.
Yes absolutely. Consultation is critical to bigger projects - get it right first time and you'll save money and do it quicker. But on the small stuff it's wildly disproportionate.
But also, conversely need to recognise that not all opposition is wrecking. Sometimes a scheme really IS badly designed and really DOES need to be changed or scrapped in response to issues raised in consultation and you'll get more done and your changes will last longer if you recognise that.
Yes, I think this comes to quant Vs qual - consultation is qual and it's not representative.
But if it is literally cheaper to do the change then take it out or change it than it is to consult first we should be allowed to do that (true for moving a 20MPH sign, not true for an LTN)
The other issue is people treating consultations as quantitative when they aren't - it's not a poll & opponents are more motivated to respond than supporters - but you do get really important qualitative information (like 'if you block that road the car repair shop over there can't get in or out')
At the time me and @timhuggan.bsky.social were arguing for a full consultation (at the time there were temp powers to fast-track LTNs so this wasn't needed) and loads of people called us wreckers. But if we'd had the consultation the scheme would still be there.
Yes and if a scheme is more complex (eg LTNs) then it is really important - the one near where I lived in Sheffield got put in and largely taken out again at huge cost because of problems identified by local Cllrs as soon as the design came out and which would have been picked up in consultation.
It feels like we should be asking a lot of questions about a major political party running someone in a by-election who is a paid asset of another state? That's similar to an MP's current salary - where would his loyalties have been? Would he have kept taking the money if he'd won?
And this has real costs. My division contains 15 villages (and one town!) and they all want buffer zone speed limits. But we can't afford to do them all. So some of them won't get it, and in the meantime speeding continues. If the consultation cost were halved, we could do it for everyone.
Again, the consultation cost is four times the cost of making the change.
Now, clearly consultation is important and allows you to access vital qualitative information about a possible change.
But there surely has to be a cheaper/more streamlined way to do it for the smallest changes.
To move it, we apparently legally need to consult - a process that will cost about four times the cost of making the change.
Similarly buffer zone speed limits - imposing a short stretch at 40mph before you get into the village 20mph zone.
Sorry, got distracted by children. Shouldn't commit to threads in the school holidays 🤣
Anyway let's take moving the sign in a 20MPH zone. In one of the villages in my division the 20mph sign is in slightly the wrong place. Everyone agrees on this as well as on the right place to move it to.
This is a good thread and worth reading, and brings me to one of my major frustrations at the moment: the cost of consultation is completely disproportionate and stops local authorities doing things that everyone wants (short 🧵)
A review of the relationship with utilities would also be an opportunity to address street scarring. It's incredibly frustrating when Thames Water come along and dig up a bit of newly resurfaced road then leave it in a state but local authorities have no power to stop them doing it.
Hard to see beyond the sheer level of vomit-in-mouth but worth saying it's VERY BAD that a former senior politician who should know better is explicitly sexualising a current female politician?
