frankPodmore

Lots of quotes from business leaders in the announcement, but worth noting that the TUC have also welcomed the new fund.

Three possibilities come to mind:

Is there an evolutionary purpose?

Does it arise as a consequence of our mental activities, a sort of side effect of our thinking?

Is it given a priori (something we have to think in order to think at all)?

EDIT: Thanks for all the responses! Just one thing I saw come up a few times I'd like to address: a lot of people are asking 'Why assume this?' The answer is: it's purely rhetorical! That said, I'm happy with a well thought-out 'I dispute the premiss' answer.

And while the Greens are doing what they do best (opposing green development), the Labour government has already lifted the Tory ban on onshore windfarms.

This is odd, because Labour are the same as the Tories, as we all know, and the Greens are a radical new force. But in this case, Labour are doing the direct opposite of the Tories, while the Greens are doing the same things the Tories did! Most curious.

EDIT: Here's the official government statement confirming this.

EDIT 2: And this isn't all! Rachel Reeves is also planning to do more to make onshore wind simpler to build.

The Greens promised to push Labour to be more radical but are instead acting how they always have: pro nimby, anti-environment.

I didn't vote Green, obviously. If I had, I imagine I'd be pretty angry that pretty much their first act having quadrupled their number of MPs was to oppose green development.

I'm sure you all know this already but it's now official.

The fourth person ever to lead Labour to a majority. The first person since 1970 to win a majority and overturn a majority at the same time.

There are lots of different tactical voting sites and sometimes they disagree on the most effective anti-Tory vote.

Fortunately, someone has built a tool to help you aggregate the different recommendations and make the best possible choice on Thursday!

Of course, spoiler alert, the best anti-Tory vote in most seats in the country is still Labour.

~~Sorry for the Twitter link, but I've not seen the video elsewhere.~~

EDIT: Twitter link now replaced, courtesy of !flamingos@feddit.uk.

Just thought this was really great! It starts off with Rayner talking about how much Brown's policies (like Sure Start and the child tax credit) helped her and her kids, then they move on to talking about how the next Labour government hopes to do the same. Then it finishes with the amazing detail that Rachel Reeves had a Gordon Brown poster on her bedroom wall as a teenager.

TL;DR: arguably.

Starmer responds to questions from the Big Issue journalists and from vendors. Nothing particularly groundbreaking here but it all sounds good.

A slightly too wordy and too long article that I nonetheless basically agree with. Key paragraphs:

Starmer’s strategic sense has been impressive, from opening his leadership consensually with qualified support for, and constructive criticism of, lockdown, to encouraging Boris Johnson to get his denials of Partygate on the record and leaving them there, to, most of all, his relentless focus on the voters he actually needs to win, rather than the ones who make the most noise.

This, of course, is the source of the biggest criticisms of Starmer from the left: that he won the leadership by relentlessly focusing on the voters he needed to win within the Labour Party, and then pivoted towards the national electorate rather than sticking with a prospectus whose chief appeal was to people who had already been shown to be a minority of a minority. I am not wholly unsympathetic to this view: his ten pledges were mostly bad, and he shouldn’t have made them; but dropping bad policies is better than sticking to them, and winning is better than losing.

After all, Jeremy Corbyn didn’t keep any of his promises, which may be why a recent election leaflet endorsing his bid to be the independent MP for Islington North gives so much prominence to his role in saving the Number 4 bus route.