And because I have just taken time to read it. There was a really good interview with Lord Toby Young who set up the Free Speech Union. I had not realised that his father was a Labour peer and wrote the 1945 Labour manifesto. Toby Young has slightly different politics.
Yes Amnesty are still awful but have promised something within 14 days. They say that they have approached Sex Matters for a meeting but have yet to hear back.
It is really good that Burnham halted the release of violent criminals as it was getting to be quite the scandal.
Would that it were that simple. Even before the influx of migrants (the vast majority of whom are law abiding -- the problem is the very small percentage who are not -- as the places are finite), the prisons had overcrowding problems --- part of the reason why electronic tagging becomes a thing. When a population rapidly grows, the strain on the existing infrastructure becomes immense. And you want criminals who have committed in this country to be sentenced under UK sentencing guidelines -- this is particularly true for crimes of violence against women and girls...
The Left would come unglued, but I think what's needed is the reimplementation of capital punishment for crimes like murder and rape. The reality is that people who are not safe to permit to live in society should not be living out their lives on the public dime, waiting for the moment when Leftists will manage to free them.
In the 60s, when convicted and sentenced to death, the hanging was carried out with days if not hours. I saw that on Grantchester. Maybe the old ways were the best.
Well, I agree with you as it is going to make very little difference and will be reversed. I dare say that he will not be overly enamoured of Chequers. I am not sure it will cost that much money because they are using the Northern hub of GCHQ (this was a Burnham proudly presents when he got them to relocate there). This means it will have all the up to date systems. There again -- where is he going to live? His old home? How will that be made secure?
They have been slowly but steadily moving departments out of London (living costs) to the North. suspect this is a move to get some of the more reluctant departments up there.
And what happens when there is a new PM? Downing Street Somewhere else?
The speed with which No10 North was set up indicates that it’s a remote office, convenient for the Prime Minister who comes from the north and wants to work there part of the time while raising the profile of Manchester. Why shouldn’t he have a place to work closer to home? This is just a glorified home office you could say. It seems well thought through in terms of location and security; his home security will have been similarly thought through. Chequers will be used on a handful occasions for visiting dignitaries, but not as a party home as Johnson made it. Government departments have been moving out of London for decades and so they should. I’m enjoying your posts and although we wouldn’t agree on everything I admire your concise analysis.
From what I understand -- it is also part of the whole getting the civil service out of central London vibe. It is important to understand which departments they moved up there -- housing, and some parts of the Treasury. Housing, communities and local government is the department which should be overseeing the devolution of power.
And I'd be very worried if someone agreed with me on everything. Mills trident is hugely important.
So be honest and say it's because he wants to see his missus once a week. All this nonsense about it being a means of devolving power to The North is risible. Devolving power means more investment and giving local autyhorities more abilities to raise and spend money as they see fit, not to have an office in central Manchester.
Also I think it is because central London has become way too expensive for a civil servant's pay. They are apparently offering relocation packages for senior civil servants. They were building that digital campus in any case.
And because I have just taken time to read it. There was a really good interview with Lord Toby Young who set up the Free Speech Union. I had not realised that his father was a Labour peer and wrote the 1945 Labour manifesto. Toby Young has slightly different politics.
But the FSU is his baby and it has done really great work. (gift article) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/dda660def589773a
Not a gift article.
It should be. Try this which is the gift from the FSU. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/512ff0cdb74b6863?mc_cid=e2dd9c448c&mc_eid=cded833dfe
Nope.
Try this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/19/toby-young-interview/ or https://archive.ph/v8Asu
TY Michelle. Great article.
Hello Northumberland! Good to see You again.
I'm glad Burnham halted the release of the prisoners.
Kemi is great.
Amnesty is still awful.
I'm glad to hear You have good weather. We do here too. Glad to hear the bees are doing so well.
Paddy looks great, as always.
I'm glad to hear about the Anthropic settlement. And, as always, TY Michelle.
Great to see you again JT.
Yes Amnesty are still awful but have promised something within 14 days. They say that they have approached Sex Matters for a meeting but have yet to hear back.
It is really good that Burnham halted the release of violent criminals as it was getting to be quite the scandal.
The real problem is that we have finite prison places, a rapidly growing population.....
Well that's an easy fix. Stop importing third world savages and deport the ones who are currently committing all the crimes. Duh!
Would that it were that simple. Even before the influx of migrants (the vast majority of whom are law abiding -- the problem is the very small percentage who are not -- as the places are finite), the prisons had overcrowding problems --- part of the reason why electronic tagging becomes a thing. When a population rapidly grows, the strain on the existing infrastructure becomes immense. And you want criminals who have committed in this country to be sentenced under UK sentencing guidelines -- this is particularly true for crimes of violence against women and girls...
The Left would come unglued, but I think what's needed is the reimplementation of capital punishment for crimes like murder and rape. The reality is that people who are not safe to permit to live in society should not be living out their lives on the public dime, waiting for the moment when Leftists will manage to free them.
Law abiding is a rather low bar. If they don't try to become British in every sense of the word, they have no place in Britain. This is not difficult.
In the 60s, when convicted and sentenced to death, the hanging was carried out with days if not hours. I saw that on Grantchester. Maybe the old ways were the best.
The last person hanged in the UK was Ruth Ellis and she died in 1955.
I am very much against the death penalty.
What is the point of having a prime ministerial office in Manchester? it is a symbolic gesture at best which is going to cost a lot of money.
By the way, I live in Manchester.
Well, I agree with you as it is going to make very little difference and will be reversed. I dare say that he will not be overly enamoured of Chequers. I am not sure it will cost that much money because they are using the Northern hub of GCHQ (this was a Burnham proudly presents when he got them to relocate there). This means it will have all the up to date systems. There again -- where is he going to live? His old home? How will that be made secure?
They have been slowly but steadily moving departments out of London (living costs) to the North. suspect this is a move to get some of the more reluctant departments up there.
And what happens when there is a new PM? Downing Street Somewhere else?
V gimmicky.
The speed with which No10 North was set up indicates that it’s a remote office, convenient for the Prime Minister who comes from the north and wants to work there part of the time while raising the profile of Manchester. Why shouldn’t he have a place to work closer to home? This is just a glorified home office you could say. It seems well thought through in terms of location and security; his home security will have been similarly thought through. Chequers will be used on a handful occasions for visiting dignitaries, but not as a party home as Johnson made it. Government departments have been moving out of London for decades and so they should. I’m enjoying your posts and although we wouldn’t agree on everything I admire your concise analysis.
From what I understand -- it is also part of the whole getting the civil service out of central London vibe. It is important to understand which departments they moved up there -- housing, and some parts of the Treasury. Housing, communities and local government is the department which should be overseeing the devolution of power.
And I'd be very worried if someone agreed with me on everything. Mills trident is hugely important.
So be honest and say it's because he wants to see his missus once a week. All this nonsense about it being a means of devolving power to The North is risible. Devolving power means more investment and giving local autyhorities more abilities to raise and spend money as they see fit, not to have an office in central Manchester.
Also I think it is because central London has become way too expensive for a civil servant's pay. They are apparently offering relocation packages for senior civil servants. They were building that digital campus in any case.