Rockets

They just gave woolly and opaque policies on the basis of "we will not increase tax for working people" and then could not clearly define what a working person is. They sold everyone, directly or indirectly, on the notion that Covid, the energy crisis and the war in Ukraine had nothing to do with the sorry state of the UK and that it was 14 years of Tory rule and Truss' nightmare budget that was the source of all the country's woes. the moment they got in they lent in to the notion that change will be slow due to global challenges. The electorate are impatient and Labour were always going to have a huge job to keep people onside and bought in to the (long) journey the country is on to any sort of recovery. Their first 100 days should have been about solidifying the electorate's support for the journey but instead they have lurched from one own-goal to another and I think significantly distanced themselves from the electorate as they have behaved just like the Tories in many aspects of leadership (access to donors, clothing gate). Throw in spin on the £22bn gap (of which around £9bn was based on their own decisions), Winter Fuel payments ending and the attack on farmers (the very definition of working people) and it has been an utter disaster. They have a massive perceptual problem and seem incapable of delivering crisp messages that the people can get behind. Listening to members of the government trying to explain the intricacies and details of much of the aforementioned challenges is utterly painful to watch and people shut off after a couple of sentences. In opposition you can get away with soundbites and when you get scrutinised you can bridge to "14 years of hurt" and "we're not them" and people will buy it. When you're in the hot seat those things sounds hollow and suggest you don't have the answers and people will turn on you very quickly. It is in everyone's interests that they get it right because with a Tory party chasing the far-right vote because of Reform and Reform picking up disillusioned main political party voters then the alternative is really scary. Of course, we also have the threat from within the Labour party itself as if things don't go well for Starmer & co we could find Labour turning on itself.

The left don't meet with the Met - they don't like them, unless they need them for something of course!!! 😉 Bottom-line is unless Cllr Leeming knows exactly what happened and that the driver is guilty of an offence worthy of a ban there is no way he should be saying they should be banned - but, like Dulwich Roads, it seems Cllr Leeming also does not engage brain before posting and his posts are based on hope rather than reality!

And therein lies the problem for this government. They campaigned on a ticket of "we're not that lot and that lot were awful" and if we get in we will change everything. They set expectations way too high about what they might be able to achieve and how quickly and now people are saying "hang on a minute". With growth stagnating (very much a global challenge), taxation and inflation both rising the pressure will be mounting on them to provide some light at the end of the tunnel and the "well, we've had 14 years of that lot" won't cut it anymore. A bit like the "I am a son of a toolmaker", they are leaning in on the "14 years of that lot" way too much to try a deflect away from issues that they have caused like the Winter Fuel payments and going after farmers and you can tell people are getting weary of it. And that is very, very worrying for not only them as a political party but the country as a whole as this is when people turn to the populist parties. No-one in opposition has to do anything right now because the government are their own worst enemy with own-goal after own-goal.

William, a farmer, farming with both his parents who are in their 80s, summed up the nonsensical approach the government is taking on farmers on Question Time tonight when he said: "At the point at which inheritance tax becomes due you aren't in a position to pay it without selling an income bearing asset which then destabilises the very entity you have built up to create a profit from". He summed it up beautifully when he closed: "If this policy were to persist it will materially and existentially destabilise our [the county's] farming business " The biggest clap of the programme came from the ex-NFU president who accused the government panelist: "Why aren't you going after the wealthy investors, the private equity businesses that are buying up land, planting trees, offsetting their green conscience. You've done nothing to them. They're the ones driving up land prices. These farmers do not want to sell their asset....they want to invest in it and this is going to stifle investment. Who is going to want to invest in new buildings as that is going to drive up the value of the estate." "You're going after the wrong people". It's amazing that the government have been daft enough to pick a fight with farmers - Alastair Campbell commented that he did react with shock when it was announced in the budget as, he said, you don't start a fight with farmers.

Good grief.

Because your opinion seems to default to car accident = dangerous driving. But then you whine about a culture war when someone complains about bad cycling. I am just wondering why, as an elected official, Cllr Leeming feels it is his place to pass judgement on whether someone should receive a driving ban. As far as I am aware local councillors can't issue driving bans and he's hardly presuming innocence until someone is found guilty and if an arrest was made then I just wonder if it could be interpeted as political pressure to influence a decision - what was the name of that lawyer that used to get celebs off driving bans on technicalities - I bet he would have had a field day with something like this. Cllr Leeming has a history of putting his foot in it and, like so many others when posting about car accidents, really needs to engage brain before posting.

Not sure how you can ban someone from driving if they are innocent.... A local councillor is accusing a driver of driving in a way that warrants a driving ban. Surely it's for the police to decide? Could Cllr Leeming been accused of exerting political pressure on the police to influence a decision? It seems that for some local councillors, Dulwich Roads and many posters on here any driver who has an accident is guilty by default. And they try to accuse anyone who is critical of cylist bad behaviour as waging a culture war.....some should really take a look in the mirror.....

Tesco's must be GTP! I bet that went down well........

Glad to hear your daughter is ok and I hope anyone who saw it comes forward.

Fascinating The Rest is Politics questions this week and they deal with the farmer issue as the first question. Rory Stewart has a fascinating insight into the issues here (and he knows what he is talking about from his work at DEFRA) - about the high cost of land and the low returns from farming and how this is anything but a few farms being affected. Well worth a listen for those that want to hear both sides of the argument.

No it's about Cllr Leeming posting his judgement on what happened - with his comment "should be banned from driving" he is projecting significant fault to the driver, he is suggesting it was sufficiently dangerous/careless driving to warrant a ban. So, we must presume he either knows the finer details of exactly what happened and the outcome of any police investigation or he is speculating and apportioning blame to the driver.

...said by the person who started the thread using inaccurate information.....maybe that's why you want the discussion off this forum because it is exposing the very issue we have been complaining about for some time about the way car accidents are treated by those on the anti-car side of the discussion. Everyone seems very quick to jump to conclusions without ever checking the facts.

Earl, you're doing it again.....

Perhaps Cllr Leeming is a magistrate in his spare time? Does he know the finer details of what happened to such an extent that he knows that the cause warrants a ban or is he, like so many when they post anything about car accidents, taking a wild guess and speculating? And if he is, in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case with that post (this is not a snarky comment but a legitimate question to anyone who knows the law in relation to such things)?

It’s from the Treasury report…https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-the-foundations-public-spending-audit-2024-25/fixing-the-foundations-public-spending-audit-2024-25-html 1. Executive summary On 8 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that she had instructed Treasury officials to undertake a rapid audit of public spending. This document sets out the outcome of the audit, the immediate action the government is taking in response, and the long-term measures being introduced to restore public spending control. The audit carried out by the Treasury shows that the forecast overspend on departmental spending is expected to be £21.9 billion above the resource departmental expenditure limit (RDEL) totals set by the Treasury at Spring Budget 2024.[footnote 1],[footnote 2]