The continuation of the first 100 days.

Allira

I'm not sure that MPs are the best ones to advise us on healthy eating with the gourmet meals and alcohol so freely available in their place of work, all subsidised by us, he taxpayer.

Four courses, including pre-prandials, all costed at 30p per meal, of course

www.parliament.uk/site-information/freedom-of-information/information-we-already-publish/house-of-commons-publication-scheme/catering-services/commons-catering-menus-and-tariffs-archive/menus-and-tariffs-2023/

Thanks for that link. Reasonable prices even if you’re paying full price, but sadly, our staff lunches are usually packed lunches, or leftovers reheated in the microwave or occasionally a shop bought sandwich, unless you opt for a junior portion of school dinner. All paid for by the diners themselves with no subsidy offered.
And still no suggestion that MPs should give up their heating allowances.

Personally I would ban online gambling entirely, it’s too easy to loose your shirt, no problem with having a flutter on the horses or other sport, you have to make a special effort. Having the bookie in you living room is a recipe for problems.

Talks have been completed between Biden and Starmer. One of the topics rumoured to have been discussed was the possible lifting of restrictions on the Storm missile.

The decision will never be made public, and presumably before a final decision, one way or the other is made other NATO countries will voice their opinions about Zelensky’s use of the missile to take out military installations within Russian territory.

Below is listed detail of the missile

What are Storm Shadow missiles, and why does Ukraine want them

Storm Shadow missiles can hit targets up to 155 miles (250km) from their launch site – meaning they could strike deep into Russian territory. They are powerful enough to penetrate bunkers and ammunition stores and damage airfields, and can be precisely targeted.
They were developed in an Anglo-French collaboration, and manufactured by a joint venture also involving Italy, using components supplied by the US. Consequently, all four countries would have to sign off on any change to the conditions attached to their use, even if they are not the direct suppliers themselves.

Why has the west not allowed Ukraine to use the missiles in Russia

Throughout the war, the US and its allies have sought to strike a balance between giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself while avoiding any move that could be viewed as a provocation and lead to direct involvement in the war.

What has changed

Several factors. Ukraine is facing a lot of pressure on the frontline, and fears a difficult winter ahead. Its surprising cross-border incursion into Kursk last month has reframed thinking on the use of weapons on Russian soil and acted as a reminder that Ukraine is at its most effective when it is changing the dynamic of the conflict.

What are the benefits and risks of allowing Storm Shadow to be used within Russia

There is an inherent tension in how Ukraine believes the weapons can be effective: by degrading Russia’s ability to strike against targets in Ukraine, but also by bringing the war further on to Russian soil, in theory thereby making the costs to Putin more acute.
Despite having lost between 68,000 and 150,000 soldiers, according to some estimates, and with hundreds of thousands more wounded, Putin does not appear to have paid any significant political cost. Making ordinary Russians more fearful of the consequences of the war in Ukraine might make him pay more attention. But that is a narrow tightrope to walk.
A strike that caused many civilian casualties could be very problematic for the west, and if it was caused by a Storm Shadow missile it would be very hard to deny western involvement.

*Nationalisation of our energy systems*Great Britain’s electricity system operator (ESO) will be transferred into public ownership to create a new national energy system operator (Neso), which will also oversee the gas system.
The government hopes that by bringing together the separate units involved in planning Great Britain’s electricity and gas networks under one publicly owned company, the system operator can adopt a more strategic approach to achieving a net zero energy system by 2030.

Neso is expected to work alongside GB Energy, a public company set up by the Labour government to invest in low-carbon energy, to help connect new generation projects with the electricity grid. It has already been tasked by Labour’s Mission Control, a new body established to oversee its green energy ambitions, to give advice on how the UK can reach its 2030 target.

And still no suggestion that MPs should give up their heating allowances.

MPs don't have 'heating allowances'.

They are allowed to claim up to a certain amount for the expenses of a second home if they need one in order to carry out their duties. None of it is hypothecated.

Nationalisation of our energy systems*Great Britain’s electricity system operator (ESO) will be transferred into public ownership to create a new national energy system operator (Neso), which will also oversee the gas system.

So what are the implications of this for the private companies which currently supply gas and electricity to the consumer?

MaizieD

*Nationalisation of our energy systems*Great Britain’s electricity system operator (ESO) will be transferred into public ownership to create a new national energy system operator (Neso), which will also oversee the gas system.*

So what are the implications of this for the private companies which currently supply gas and electricity to the consumer?

The FTSE 100 company will continue to own and run most of the transmission cables and electricity distribution grids across the country, and will also continue developing the high-voltage cables linking the nation’s grid to other countries.

Ukraine, to win and hold territory you need “boots on the ground”. Ukraine is going to run out of manpower before Russia, the ground that Russia lost a month ago is being taken back with heavy losses for Ukraine.

I fear NATO is going to get involved on the ground unless there is a ceasefire soon, wether missiles make Russia escalate we will see soon enough, boots on the ground will I’m sure.

MaizieD

^And still no suggestion that MPs should give up their heating allowances.^

MPs don't have 'heating allowances'.

They are allowed to claim up to a certain amount for the expenses of a second home if they need one in order to carry out their duties. None of it is hypothecated.

The facts will fall on stony ground, Maisie. Someone will have heard, or seen, or read it somewhere unspecified, passed it on down the chain, and that's enough for it to be believed.

Thanks again for this thread, WWM. It's very welcome.

MaisieD
They don’t call it a heating allowance, they claim under expenses.

These are decided by IPSA, members of which are selected by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Don’t mention clash of interests.

MaizieD

Why is this nonsense about MPs having. £3,000 allowance for heating their second homes being perpetuated? Did no-one do a fact check before posting it?

www.reuters.com/fact-check/uks-reeves-does-not-have-3400-pound-heating-allowance-contrary-online-claims-2024-08-06/

No, not specifically a heating allowance:

“MPs can claim for energy costs for their constituency office, as well as their residential accommodation (if they represent a non-London constituency),” the spokesperson added. “They cannot claim for utility bills on their private homes. Whilst there is no specific upper limit on energy claims for constituency offices and residential accommodation, MPs do have an overall budget cap they must stick to for office costs (36,550 pounds in London and 33,020 pounds elsewhere) and accommodation (29,290 pounds in London and 19,940 pounds elsewhere).”

Factcheck

The WFA, too, was an allowance and not a claim for utility bills.

The Cold War “hots up”

Britain and the US have raised fears that Russia has shared nuclear secrets with Iran in return for Tehran supplying Moscow with ballistic missiles to bomb Ukraine.
During their summit in Washington DC on Friday, Keir Starmer and US president Joe Biden acknowledged that the two countries were tightening military cooperation at a time when Iran is in the process of enriching enough uranium to complete its long-held goal to build a nuclear bomb.
British sources indicated that concerns were aired about Iran’s trade for nuclear technology, part of a deepening alliance between Tehran and Moscow.
On Tuesday last week, Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, made a similar warning on a visit to London for a summit with his British counterpart, David Lammy, though it received little attention, as the focus then was the US announcement of Iran’s missile supply to Moscow.

More information relating to the Biden/Starmer talks.

The leaders and their aides discussed the war in Ukraine, the crisis in the Middle East, Iran and the emerging competition with China.
Starmer brought along with him Lammy, Downing Street’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, and the UK’s national security adviser, Tim Barrow, , while Biden was accompanied by Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the US national security adviser, among others.
Prior to the meeting, UK sources indicated that the two countries had agreed in principle to allow Ukraine to fire long-range Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time. But Biden appeared to suggest the topic was one of the reasons for the face-to-face, saying to reporters: “We’re going to discuss that now,” as the meeting began.
There was no update after the meeting, partly to keep the Kremlin guessing. Any use of the missiles is expected to be part of a wider war plan on the part of Ukraine aimed at using them to target airbases, missile launch sites and other locations used by Russia to bomb Ukraine.
Britain needs the White House’s permission to allow Ukraine to use the missiles in Russia because they use components manufactured in the US.

WFA

Groups representing disabled people are demanding urgent meetings with ministers after it was revealed that 1.6 million pensioners with disabilities will lose their winter fuel payments because of government cuts.

All eyes turn to part conference.

The government’s gloomy diagnosis of the state of Britain is imperilling the private investment needed to secure economic growth, City figures are warning, amid widespread calls for Keir Starmer to inject more optimism in his Labour conference speech later this month.

The Observer understands that while Starmer will make no apologies for underlining the serious challenges the country faces, he will also use his first Labour conference address as prime minister to explain that painful decisions this autumn will be “for a purpose” – a decade-long drive to rebuild public services and public trust in politics.

Whitewavemark2

All eyes turn to part conference.

The government’s gloomy diagnosis of the state of Britain is imperilling the private investment needed to secure economic growth, City figures are warning, amid widespread calls for Keir Starmer to inject more optimism in his Labour conference speech later this month.

The Observer understands that while Starmer will make no apologies for underlining the serious challenges the country faces, he will also use his first Labour conference address as prime minister to explain that painful decisions this autumn will be “for a purpose” – a decade-long drive to rebuild public services and public trust in politics.

Private investment will come if there is public investment, but that investment has got to be either for export or to replace imports and increasing GDP, only then can public services improve without borrowing more.

That seems to be Starmers aim.

The global situation is scary. I am watching LK just now, and her questioning makes it clearer than ever that we (the public) don’t (and can’t) know what happens behind the scenes. I have no idea whether David Lammy is doing a better job than James Cleverly did, but that’s for very good reason.

We can all have opinions about everything, but sometimes it is a good idea to remember that they are always based on partial knowledge and that’s not always about being deceived, but about the fact that some things just can’t be discussed.

Another example of a similar thing is that (again on LK) Piers Morgan is saying things about Trump that Lammy refused to say. I’m as sure as I can be that Lammy will see Trump’s comments about pet eating etc as racist nonsense but as Foreign Secretary he can’t say that. Morgan, of course, says what he likes as he is (whatever goes on in his own head) no more important than any of us on the world stage. He implied that Lammy’s reticence is hypocrisy, but that is either naive or disingenuous.

Doodledog

The global situation is scary. I am watching LK just now, and her questioning makes it clearer than ever that we (the public) don’t (and can’t) know what happens behind the scenes. I have no idea whether David Lammy is doing a better job than James Cleverly did, but that’s for very good reason.

We can all have opinions about everything, but sometimes it is a good idea to remember that they are always based on partial knowledge and that’s not always about being deceived, but about the fact that some things just can’t be discussed.

Another example of a similar thing is that (again on LK) Piers Morgan is saying things about Trump that Lammy refused to say. I’m as sure as I can be that Lammy will see Trump’s comments about pet eating etc as racist nonsense but as Foreign Secretary he can’t say that. Morgan, of course, says what he likes as he is (whatever goes on in his own head) no more important than any of us on the world stage. He implied that Lammy’s reticence is hypocrisy, but that is either naive or disingenuous.

Yes. The government represents the U.K. on the world stage, and has to form relationships with politicians of all political hues.

Lammy’s private opinion is just that it is not the FO’s opinion. To suggest otherwise shows an ignorance but I suspect Morgan knows this and is simply manipulating.

Of course he is.

There is always going to be a difference between what politicians can say in opposition and what they can say in government. The role of the opposition is to question everything, and the role of government is to get things done.

Pretending not to recognise that just makes Morgan look foolish.

Mollygo

MaisieD
They don’t call it a heating allowance, they claim under expenses.

These are decided by IPSA, members of which are selected by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Don’t mention clash of interests.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, Mollygo but here is the schedule of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 which sets out the membership of IPSA and the method of appointing them.

In fact, this and the next few schedules tell you everything you could possibly wish to know about IPSA and how its proceedings should be carried out.

Perhaps you would like to read them and explain why you think the body is biased?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/13/schedule/1

I have read loads of stuff and have answers from IPSA itself. If you ask the right questions you can get up to date answers.

I would also like to thank you WWM2 for this informed and rational thread.
I am finding the Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart podcasts The Rest is Politics incredibly helpful in keeping up with the geopolitical situation.

Doodledog, this is one comment by you that I am in complete agreement with. We cannot know what is going on behind the scenes so our take on events is only based on partial knowledge. You are so right.

Cold War - heating up

I am finding it all a tad alarming though.

I do think that we have no alternative but to stand up to Putin, because I am sure he has expansionist plans quietly tucked away.

I don't think we'll get change in US foreign policy on joint concerns until the elections ie know if the US will commit to a particular course, and certainly would have been completely out of order for Lammy to comment.

Morgan has done a complete U turn on Trump - and Harris. A bizarre, ego inflated commentator.