I think a case could have been made for it. Borrowing to invest is allowed by the fiscal rules, and it would've been popular with a large set of the electorate. Weighing it against the electoral impact to the presentation of the party as being fiscally responsible would've been a tough needle to thread though. Many folks point to Corbyn's WASPI payout policy and nationalisation of BT as being among the key things that killed his campaign back in the day for much the same reason.

The way the lady in the article speaks though, it sounds like there is maybe a case for pursuing private funding as a better option. I've read elsewhere that even a modest public investment over the long term can encourage tons of private investment due to the certainty it provides. If the planned ~£15bn public investment ends up attracting enough private money to get up to a similar amount to £28bn and comes with tons of consequent economic activity around the edges then this may end up having been the better approach.

On the other hand, if it attracts hardly any — perhaps due to the Tories pledging to scrap GB Energy and the NWF, thereby removing the long-term certainty around the whole thing — then it may turn out to be a massively consequential and disastrous route to have taken. I think we'll have an inkling long before 2029 if that's likely to be the case.

Saving this one for posterity.

The decision to cut the £28bn pledge was very unpopular among members, though seemingly immediately forgiven by an electorate that understood it was too costly given our financial situation.

In 2029 though I wonder how we'll look back at the decision. The National Wealth Fund certainly holds a lot of promise, but will it have had enough of an impact to alleviate the disappointment of those who'd have preferred much larger direct public funding instead?

It seems Rhian-Mari Thomas may be a name worth remembering whatever the outcome.

Nope, MPs vote down to the final two then it goes to the membership — hence Liz Truss. This didn't happen with Sunak's ascension because he faced no opposition.

As Tim Montgomerie often says, as rabidly right wing as some of the '22 is, the membership put them to shame. Leaves them in a really awkward position right now with the soul of their party being fought over, with most sane MPs backing more moderate candidates despite knowing the membership will favour the most rampantly right wing.

I expect Powell to just ignore this, but man it's going to be a political bloodbath this winter.

I think means testing the payment is sound in principle, but the bar to be eligible for it per that of Pension Credit seems way too high. The news stories and vox pops when the cold starts to bite are going to be devastating — to say nothing of PMQs where I imagine we'll have months of this in prominence.

Hmmm. I'm broadly supportive of reducing the influence of the membership vote as I think it's had a disastrous effect on both major parties, but I might need some convincing about removing it entirely.

The leader must be able to effectively lead their Parliamentary party. Thresholds for MP support is one effective gateway toward ensuring they do and it'll certainly work after such a massive landslide as in June, but longer term it may not be enough given the number of persistent rebels in the Parliamentary party. Perhaps something approaching a veto or easier ousting from the PLP (like the 1922 Committee's confidence system, perhaps) would do the trick?

Regardless, conference is going to be very fun this year.

The suggestion there's some sort of wave of Democrats splitting for Trump is laughable when there's no ideological alignment between even the most centrist Democrats and Trump. The few jumping over, like Gabbard, are the most cynically hollow of politicians who have no political ideology to speak of, simply chasing what's best for their profile.

With the Trump campaign floundering and a Harris win looking more and more likely, I think even the most vapid and opportunistic of them will be thinking twice before jumping ship now.

First as tragedy, then as farce.

I like the human-centred language, strange as it feels on the tongue. I wonder if it might help frame development a bit better in place of 'user' or 'customer' — aside from the more real distinction between humans and AI we're all going to have to get used to in design.

Sway by default lets you move windows by dragging their title bar. Minimise/maximise doesn't make sense in Sway, but adding fullscreen and close behaviour to buttons on your menubar of choice or extra mouse buttons would be pretty easy. Graphical app launchers exist too — I use one in Sway on my Yoga since I primarily use its touchscreen.

I appreciate those things aren't in place by default, but they are kinda antithetical to the tiling paradigm, and if you're using something like Sway then you're probably tinkering a ton with it anyway.

That's the Welsh alright. Rocket launchers on our sheep, cawl in our boiling vessels, and a generations-long hatred of the English sown deep in our vengeful hearts.