Peter Garbett
@petergarbett.bsky.social
Retired software engineer on jet engine control systems . Owned by a small dog and partner. #fbpe and liberal enough to be occasionally annoyed by the Liberals. Watches mathologer videos and Tim Hunkin drilling holes .
Reposted by Peter Garbett
I think this sums up Blue Labour to a tee: someone experiences, or shares a human tragedy, and you feel sad for them, but equally it doesn’t give them license to tear up 600 years of information about what drives prosperity and replace it with saying the word “relational” a lot.
There are some truly unhinged bits in the piece about Glasman, as to be expected when dealing with Glasman, but seriously what the actual? That's...one hell of a conflation of terminology.
November 23, 2025 at 4:11 PM
I think this sums up Blue Labour to a tee: someone experiences, or shares a human tragedy, and you feel sad for them, but equally it doesn’t give them license to tear up 600 years of information about what drives prosperity and replace it with saying the word “relational” a lot.
Look what I found yesterday. Our copy of this, sent to every household.
November 22, 2025 at 10:08 AM
Look what I found yesterday. Our copy of this, sent to every household.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
This is a clown-car government elected on a seriousness ticket iandunt.substack.com/p/a-clown-go...
November 21, 2025 at 12:08 PM
This is a clown-car government elected on a seriousness ticket iandunt.substack.com/p/a-clown-go...
Reposted by Peter Garbett
I’m particularly angry today with all those people who attacked us for daring to challenge Laura Kuenssberg, implying we were misogynistic and unfair.
No.
She, together with Peston et al, played a key role in Boris Johnson’s ‘success’.
No.
She, together with Peston et al, played a key role in Boris Johnson’s ‘success’.
November 21, 2025 at 12:24 PM
I’m particularly angry today with all those people who attacked us for daring to challenge Laura Kuenssberg, implying we were misogynistic and unfair.
No.
She, together with Peston et al, played a key role in Boris Johnson’s ‘success’.
No.
She, together with Peston et al, played a key role in Boris Johnson’s ‘success’.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
This government has not taken a single meaningful step to tackle the causes of the horrendous inefficiencies in the criminal justice system, instead rushing to dismantle trial by jury.
Legal professionals have offered numerous alternatives to address the backlog.
Ministers are not listening.
Legal professionals have offered numerous alternatives to address the backlog.
Ministers are not listening.
MoJ to remove right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in controversial overhaul
MoJ to remove right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in controversial overhaul
Exclusive: Courts minister says change needed to stop criminals opting for juries to delay cases, sometimes by years, and clear huge backlog
*
UK politics live – latest updates
Criminals will be stopped from “gaming the system” by choosing trial by jury in order to increase the chances of proceedings collapsing, the courts minister has said, promising to enact radical changes to limit jury trials by the next election.
Drug dealers and career criminals were “laughing in the dock” knowing cases can take years to come to trial, Sarah Sackman told the Guardian, saying inaction would be a road to “chaos and ruin”. Continue reading...
www.theguardian.com
November 21, 2025 at 7:57 AM
This government has not taken a single meaningful step to tackle the causes of the horrendous inefficiencies in the criminal justice system, instead rushing to dismantle trial by jury.
Legal professionals have offered numerous alternatives to address the backlog.
Ministers are not listening.
Legal professionals have offered numerous alternatives to address the backlog.
Ministers are not listening.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Ooooooof
The Labour government will deteriorate from here on.ft.com/449jsRK | opinion
The Labour government will deteriorate from here
Starmer and Reeves are unfit and their likeliest usurpers are worse
on.ft.com
November 19, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Ooooooof
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Plans to leave refugees in a state of perpetual uncertainty about where and if they can rebuild their lives are not just performative cruelty, they are counterproductive to integration and the economy. It doesn’t have to be like this - 1/2
November 17, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Plans to leave refugees in a state of perpetual uncertainty about where and if they can rebuild their lives are not just performative cruelty, they are counterproductive to integration and the economy. It doesn’t have to be like this - 1/2
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Obviously, the way to understand this is as an avant garde performance of post modernism in a political context. Imagine the political world is entirely constructed from a series of different moving planes that - crucially - lack any sort of referential depth. In other words, it’s pure performance.
The government seems to be trying to simultaneously claim it can deliver Reform’s agenda better than Reform, while also about once a month sending out someone to decry Reform’s racism.
It’s genuinely sort of amazing that they still haven’t realised why that doesn’t work.
It’s genuinely sort of amazing that they still haven’t realised why that doesn’t work.
November 16, 2025 at 7:43 PM
Obviously, the way to understand this is as an avant garde performance of post modernism in a political context. Imagine the political world is entirely constructed from a series of different moving planes that - crucially - lack any sort of referential depth. In other words, it’s pure performance.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
This is what many of us have been saying. Part 3 of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill is based on a myth: that we don't have enough homes because wildlife and green spaces are protected. It will solve nothing, and inflict terrible harm on our remaining ecosystems
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
Nature not a blocker to housing growth, inquiry finds
Commons committee report challenges ‘lazy narrative’ used by ministers that scapegoats wildlife and the environment
www.theguardian.com
November 16, 2025 at 12:12 PM
This is what many of us have been saying. Part 3 of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill is based on a myth: that we don't have enough homes because wildlife and green spaces are protected. It will solve nothing, and inflict terrible harm on our remaining ecosystems
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...
Reposted by Peter Garbett
As Marx would have said:
Musk has only read these books in various ways; the point, however, is to understand them
Musk has only read these books in various ways; the point, however, is to understand them
history will ultimately decide this but i think joyce carol oates might have just landed the most devastating burn in human history. like the death star trench run of posting
oh my god
November 10, 2025 at 8:39 PM
As Marx would have said:
Musk has only read these books in various ways; the point, however, is to understand them
Musk has only read these books in various ways; the point, however, is to understand them
Reposted by Peter Garbett
The fact that Joyce Carol Oates clearly loves beating the shit out of Musk invites us, the readers, to revisit and reconsider our assessment of her famous work, "On Boxing".
“whatever club he’s invited to join has been devalued by the invitation”
November 11, 2025 at 6:58 AM
The fact that Joyce Carol Oates clearly loves beating the shit out of Musk invites us, the readers, to revisit and reconsider our assessment of her famous work, "On Boxing".
Reposted by Peter Garbett
I also wish people would spell out the alternative proposal here.
"We should have kept tariffs and capital restrictions on China skyhigh in the hopes it never became a competitive industrial producer, trapping hundreds of millions in subsistance poverty and raising the cost of everything."
"We should have kept tariffs and capital restrictions on China skyhigh in the hopes it never became a competitive industrial producer, trapping hundreds of millions in subsistance poverty and raising the cost of everything."
This is also said about Europe's approach to China and I simply don't believe this is true. I was at conferences with senior US folk in the early 2010s and none thought China would become more democratic or liberal.
We thought we could compete.
We thought we could compete.
November 10, 2025 at 9:53 PM
I also wish people would spell out the alternative proposal here.
"We should have kept tariffs and capital restrictions on China skyhigh in the hopes it never became a competitive industrial producer, trapping hundreds of millions in subsistance poverty and raising the cost of everything."
"We should have kept tariffs and capital restrictions on China skyhigh in the hopes it never became a competitive industrial producer, trapping hundreds of millions in subsistance poverty and raising the cost of everything."
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Very interesting piece, including the extract below which has the ring of truth
November 10, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Very interesting piece, including the extract below which has the ring of truth
Reposted by Peter Garbett
It also means a substantial amount of detailed factual programming ends up spiralling off into the world of niche podcasts and Youtube channels rather than formats that are accessible for a mass audience
I go on about 'remember when BBC Parliament was a real channel?', but from a 'protecting the corporation' perspective, the flight from detail both means 'fewer programmes that MPs and the political class themselves directly enjoy' and also 'fewer programmes that the political class appears on'.
It would also have more defenders more readily to say no thats bullshit its a great institution and you can fuck off when facing this kind of assault
November 10, 2025 at 3:29 PM
It also means a substantial amount of detailed factual programming ends up spiralling off into the world of niche podcasts and Youtube channels rather than formats that are accessible for a mass audience
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Headline from a serious and long working paper on the economic impact of Brexit. Possible that this has been feeding into OBR and HMT discussions?
November 10, 2025 at 9:33 AM
Headline from a serious and long working paper on the economic impact of Brexit. Possible that this has been feeding into OBR and HMT discussions?
Reposted by Peter Garbett
If you want to sustain your carefully-cultivated fury at the stupid Panorama edit then don’t, whatever you do, read or listen to Trump’s speech in its entirety…
November 10, 2025 at 7:47 AM
If you want to sustain your carefully-cultivated fury at the stupid Panorama edit then don’t, whatever you do, read or listen to Trump’s speech in its entirety…
Reposted by Peter Garbett
A meta point is that it was Sue Gray who drew up the priority list which reflected existential priorities rather than political ones.
So obviously McSweeney got Starmer to sack her.
And thus was Rohan brought low from the start.
So obviously McSweeney got Starmer to sack her.
And thus was Rohan brought low from the start.
A very good piece from Sam.
It’s important to understand that there is no criminal justice “system”. Rather there are a baffling range of organisations with unaligned objectives, broken systems and no resources desperately struggling around to keep the illusion of a “system” going.
It’s important to understand that there is no criminal justice “system”. Rather there are a baffling range of organisations with unaligned objectives, broken systems and no resources desperately struggling around to keep the illusion of a “system” going.
New post just out:
Why the criminal justice system should be top of No. 10's "shit list".
No part of the public sector is more broken or brings with it greater political risk. As we saw these past two weeks.
It desperately needs a new approach.
(£/free trial)
open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/f...
Why the criminal justice system should be top of No. 10's "shit list".
No part of the public sector is more broken or brings with it greater political risk. As we saw these past two weeks.
It desperately needs a new approach.
(£/free trial)
open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/f...
November 8, 2025 at 9:39 AM
A meta point is that it was Sue Gray who drew up the priority list which reflected existential priorities rather than political ones.
So obviously McSweeney got Starmer to sack her.
And thus was Rohan brought low from the start.
So obviously McSweeney got Starmer to sack her.
And thus was Rohan brought low from the start.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
"Seizing Brexit opportunities to deregulate" was mostly unspecified magic fairy pixie bullshit then, and it's not going to get any more realistic in the hands of a bunch of Reform clowns who don't know how anything works, don't care to learn and disdain anyone that might.
November 8, 2025 at 9:18 AM
"Seizing Brexit opportunities to deregulate" was mostly unspecified magic fairy pixie bullshit then, and it's not going to get any more realistic in the hands of a bunch of Reform clowns who don't know how anything works, don't care to learn and disdain anyone that might.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Even better, Number 10 staffers touted the replacement of the whips office as a big win to cheer up disgruntled backbenchers, to the complete bafflement of several. Some of whom then signed up to the “Keir’s gotta go” faction, in sheer frustration.
November 8, 2025 at 10:45 AM
Even better, Number 10 staffers touted the replacement of the whips office as a big win to cheer up disgruntled backbenchers, to the complete bafflement of several. Some of whom then signed up to the “Keir’s gotta go” faction, in sheer frustration.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Number 10 is dealing with the problem of no-one being willing to tell it bad news…by firing anyone who tells it bad news.
This is why Lucy Powell was fired as commons leader (look how that worked out) and why most whips were shuffled out (for correctly saying Number 10 would lose on welfare).
This is why Lucy Powell was fired as commons leader (look how that worked out) and why most whips were shuffled out (for correctly saying Number 10 would lose on welfare).
“Nobody thought a Labour government would have to raise taxes by more than £70bn,” claims one insider in this excellent piece. Shows the problem of the climate of fear in meetings created by some of Starmer’s aides, in that plenty of Labour insiders, did, in fact, think this!
The politics of breaking manifesto promises
The history of politicians who go back on their words has lessons for Rachel Reeves as she mulls raising taxes
www.ft.com
November 8, 2025 at 10:44 AM
Number 10 is dealing with the problem of no-one being willing to tell it bad news…by firing anyone who tells it bad news.
This is why Lucy Powell was fired as commons leader (look how that worked out) and why most whips were shuffled out (for correctly saying Number 10 would lose on welfare).
This is why Lucy Powell was fired as commons leader (look how that worked out) and why most whips were shuffled out (for correctly saying Number 10 would lose on welfare).
Reposted by Peter Garbett
That the UK - one of the architects of this fund, designed to save the world’s forests - is now refusing to put any money into it is frankly shameful. Starmer’s claim that he still continues to back the fund is meaningless without resources - so much for climate leadership
November 6, 2025 at 9:54 AM
That the UK - one of the architects of this fund, designed to save the world’s forests - is now refusing to put any money into it is frankly shameful. Starmer’s claim that he still continues to back the fund is meaningless without resources - so much for climate leadership
Reposted by Peter Garbett
If parties want credit for telling hard truths, they need to tell them when they're genuinely hard.
If Labour had told the truth about taxes & the costs of Brexit before the election, its majority would be smaller.
But it would have more real power & the public would put more faith in its judgment
If Labour had told the truth about taxes & the costs of Brexit before the election, its majority would be smaller.
But it would have more real power & the public would put more faith in its judgment
She is telling an accurate story of recent history - the triple punch of austerity, Brexit and covid. It's spot on. But it is terribly strange to say it now in government when you were not prepared to say it in opposition.
November 4, 2025 at 9:49 AM
If parties want credit for telling hard truths, they need to tell them when they're genuinely hard.
If Labour had told the truth about taxes & the costs of Brexit before the election, its majority would be smaller.
But it would have more real power & the public would put more faith in its judgment
If Labour had told the truth about taxes & the costs of Brexit before the election, its majority would be smaller.
But it would have more real power & the public would put more faith in its judgment
Reposted by Peter Garbett
The Dutch electoral system shows the real benefits of proportional representation. Wilders can win the most MPs but because the far-right cannot operate outside of hatred they're unable to form coalitions or actually govern. The exact same thing would happen to Reform since Farage is the UK Wilders.
Voting opens in Netherlands as polls suggest second Geert Wilders win
Major parties rule out coalition with rightwinger, giving his party little chance of being part of government
www.theguardian.com
October 29, 2025 at 9:57 AM
The Dutch electoral system shows the real benefits of proportional representation. Wilders can win the most MPs but because the far-right cannot operate outside of hatred they're unable to form coalitions or actually govern. The exact same thing would happen to Reform since Farage is the UK Wilders.
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Good summary of how Starmer's troubles come from a fatal convergence of lack of coherent policy, political and comms strategies. There were key flaws to Blair and Brown's policy vision, but they at least were able to formulate a desired end state around which they designed policy, politics and comms
I know nothing of Canadian politics but I regularly see Carney speeches in which he says basically, ‘this is where we are now, this is where we want to be, and this is how we think we’ll get there’. He might be talking bs for all I know, but he’s communicating properly. Starmer doesn’t do this. Why?
October 28, 2025 at 6:10 PM
Good summary of how Starmer's troubles come from a fatal convergence of lack of coherent policy, political and comms strategies. There were key flaws to Blair and Brown's policy vision, but they at least were able to formulate a desired end state around which they designed policy, politics and comms
Reposted by Peter Garbett
Meanwhile, how UK politics is being conducted... tax us less and we might invent some investment numbers that make you look good but are unlikely to really make any difference to growth.
An increasingly sclerotic economy.
www.politico.eu/article/uk-t...
An increasingly sclerotic economy.
www.politico.eu/article/uk-t...
UK considers scrapping oil and gas windfall tax in bid to boost growth
Treasury officials are searching for ways to boost U.K. growth ahead of November’s budget.
www.politico.eu
October 23, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Meanwhile, how UK politics is being conducted... tax us less and we might invent some investment numbers that make you look good but are unlikely to really make any difference to growth.
An increasingly sclerotic economy.
www.politico.eu/article/uk-t...
An increasingly sclerotic economy.
www.politico.eu/article/uk-t...