christine_a

I'm interested in digital inclusion and am opposed to creeping privatisation. I love reading and am never without a book.

[christine_a @phoebeBlogs]

@ElCShaikh @william30726399 Was this missed because all these brilliant legal minds instructed for the defence at vast cost to the govt are actually using AI to examine documents but @stugoo17 was the first real human oversight?

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

“Cruelty, negligence, and a profound lack of accountability” is the best way I can describe what the experience of many I have spoken to - including myself - working in the NHS has become in recent years.

For those of us who have spent more than a quarter of a century studying, training, and working within the NHS, coming to terms with its current state brings a complex form of grief. It is not simply disappointment or frustration - mourning is the correct term to describe it. The NHS has always had flaws, but it genuinely was never this bad before.

My involvement in the Letby case has accelerated my gradually worsening loss of faith. I did not choose to speak up about the Letby case naively. Over many years, I have supported people raising concerns about patient safety and have witnessed first-hand the familiar patterns of whistleblower retaliation, scapegoating, and institutional self-preservation. I thought I knew what both individuals and institutions were capable of.

As an instructed expert, I examined the full medical records for all of the babies involved. I subsequently reviewed the medical expert reports and all communications that preceded what can only be described as the persecution of Letby prior to her prosecution. That direct exposure - both to the clinical material and to the institutional correspondence - fundamentally shifted my perspective from a belief that “we can still make this better” to the more unsettling fact that “it is over, isn’t it”.

I have never before seen an example in which not only multiple individuals but also multiple institutions - those meant to safeguard truth, justice, and patient safety - converged in a way that actively enabled a profound miscarriage of justice. What makes it even more disturbing is that some individuals within those systems appeared to recognise that something was deeply wrong, yet the institutions themselves proved unable - or unwilling - to intervene.

Being involved as an instructed medical expert in the Letby case has profoundly altered me, both as a doctor and as a human being. It has shattered the faith I once held in the capacity of most individuals and systems to self-correct when faced with obvious evidence they have made mistakes.

For the first time in my professional life, I no longer believe the NHS is capable of meaningful reform from within. I now find myself instead observing its gradual implosion - which now is I think inevitable - with deep sorrow, hoping that enough wise and compassionate people survive whatever follows, so that they may help rebuild something from the wreckage.

https://t.co/p5MJYbAv2k

@drphilhammond @PrivateEyeNews @NadineDorries @ClarkeMicah @sarahknapton @ShaunLintern @DOckendenLtd @hannahsbee @LucyLetbyTrials @Michelehal7344 @PeterElston1 @Voice4theDead @DavidDavisMP @DavidRoseUK @FelicityLa76731 @guardian @SkyNews @C4Faye @Channel4News @channel5_tv @BBCNews @alisonleary1 @theJeremyVine @Jeremy_Hunt @wesstreeting

[christine_a @phoebeBlogs]

@moving_charlie interested to see property was marked sold stc on Rightmove - the EA told me the software wouldn’t allow them to do that when we had an offer accepted

[Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick]

Now presumably Josh Simons, who sacrificed his Makerfield seat for Andy Burnham, will be given a peerage - as Lord Simons of Makerdeal perhaps. What one might call the road to Wigan peer?

[Moving Home with Charlie @moving_charlie]

On Thursday I have been invited by a government dept to Whitehall to discuss the matter of House Price transparency.

They have been listening.

They want to talk. That's very good.

I'm bringing Stig.

[Home Owners Rights Network @HorNet_Group]

While being missold about privately managed estates and what the real implications are to be burdened to look after public parks and public infrastructure @Keir_Starmer @paulwaugh @mtpennycook. So they will save £650 only to be robbed if thousands through the back door. This is unforgivable @alistrathern @CHinchliffMP @FloEshalomi @JRobinsonHORNET @AndyBurnhamGM #StopTheRotAdoptTheLot

[Sean O'Grady @_SeanOGrady]

Andy Burnham should put country and party before his own vaulting ambition https://t.co/MO9eHdlrJn

[Mark Urban @MarkUrban01]

Fascinating that Starmer is widely regarded as doomed when so many key metrics are going his way: channel crossings, migration more generally, NHS waiting lists, and today’s inflation numbers

[Nick Wallis @nickwallis]

I don’t think he’s on X any more but Richard Moorhead has been given an OBE in the birthday honours list. Richard has done a phenomenal amount of thinking, writing and work on helping victims of the Post Office scandal and his award is very well deserved.

[Emma @MrsEmmaWebber]

Barnaby Philip John Webber
11/01/2004-13/06/2023 💔

If you can, share these images of the beautiful soul stolen from us by the worst of humanity.

Let his face today burn bright.
Barney, I promise you there will be accountability 💛💚

For You. For Grace. For Ian.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Pippa, with respect, you appear to have moved well beyond reporting and into advocacy. For months now, the Guardian has seemed determined to promote Andy Burnham as the answer to every question while simultaneously publishing a steady stream of stories predicting the imminent demise of Sir Keir Starmer.

The problem is that much of this narrative relies on unnamed sources, anonymous briefings and political gossip rather than hard evidence. The reality is that Labour remains in government with a substantial parliamentary majority, and there has been no convincing case made as to why a sitting Prime Minister should be replaced by someone who has yet to present a detailed programme, explain how it would be funded, or demonstrate that he commands support beyond a vocal section of the commentariat.

What is particularly striking is that many of the same journalists who spent years criticising Labour for internal division now seem eager to encourage it. Rather than reporting events as they unfold, there is an increasing impression that some are attempting to create a leadership contest through repetition alone.

The British public expect governments to govern, not journalists to act as political kingmakers. Until there is evidence of an actual challenge, rather than another round of anonymous briefings, this looks more like a campaign being waged in newspaper columns than one taking place in the Labour Party itself.

[christine_a @phoebeBlogs]

@Toniatuslim That's so heartwarming thanks for sharing and many years of happiness in your new home

[Yuan Yang @YuanfenYang]

As an economist, former FT journalist and now Labour MP, l don’t think the bond markets have to fear a change of Labour leadership.

The biggest problem for gilt investors and MPs alike is inflation – & it remains our common enemy. My @FT op-ed 👇 (1/5)

[christine_a @phoebeBlogs]

@moving_charlie There's also the reverse situation - buyer's experienced solicitor asking pertinent q's getting waffly nonsense back. Buyer only has leverage before exchange

[Dr Sanjoy Kumar @drsanjoykumar]

Amanda Sullivan - CEO Nottingham ICB (Integrated Care Board NHS)
So this lady says she has no idea that an ICB of which she is CEO commissions and then monitors a service.
Your evidence was an embarrassment to you and the people of Nottinghamshire who pay you to look after them.
Every performance and oversight group, every monitoring group you said report to the board. But you clueless person you are the board, you’re the chief exec.
They report to you.
It’s your job to see as a commissioner what you’re paying for is getting delivered ….no one else’s. Dear god you’re hopeless and clueless.
So major crimes by mental health patients happening weeks before the Nottingham attacks. They did not stir you. Did you not ask what the hells going on in my back yard? Did you not ask what an unfit mental health service am I commissioning?
Like Sokolov someone else’s job ……WRONG. It was your job.
You are part of the problem.
If a service is not doing what they should, report, decommission, go to the Sec of State for health but dont place our kids at risk, which you did……
……RESIGN……you should never work in healthcare again.
You are an integral part of why the system went wrong and why the Nottingham attacks happened. The people of Nottingham should have no confidence in you.
Be honorable….step down and resign
@nottm_post @OliverPridmore @AllisonPearson @NotThatBigIan @EmilyMayTV @Alison1mackITV @SkyNews @MartinDaubney @jamesmurray_ldn @Fhamiltontimes @GMB

[christine_a @phoebeBlogs]

#leasehold

[Norma Cohen @NormaCohen3]

Serious Question: Why are leaseholders being asked to underwrite the cost of structural repairs to ANY building when they do not own a single brick in it? https://t.co/Xa0mTqtSZ2

[christine_a @phoebeBlogs]

Excellent advice - "Push back in writing — Demand they confirm the legal basis for any extra charge and provide full details of the permitted fee structure under the 2024 Act. Ask for evidence that the charge relates only to permitted activities and is not tied to broker choice"

[Moving Home with Charlie @moving_charlie]

Almost certainly illegal in the same way estate agents can’t force you to use their broker.

Yes, the managing agent’s action is highly questionable and likely unlawful under current UK leasehold rules (primarily in England and Wales). It directly conflicts with the spirit and (as of June 2026) the letter of reforms designed to stop exactly this kind of behaviour.

Why it’s problematic
The managing agent is threatening to impose extra charges (presumably via the service charge or an administration fee) unless the block uses their “in-house” insurance broker. This is a classic tied-sale or conflict-of-interest tactic: they’re trying to steer business to their preferred/connected broker (almost certainly to capture commission or a related benefit), even though the residents collectively own the freehold through enfranchisement.
Under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (sections 59–64 and associated secondary legislation on permitted insurance fees):
•Hidden or excessive commissions paid to freeholders or managing agents via insurance premiums are banned from being passed on to leaseholders.
•Agents/freeholders can only recover transparent “permitted insurance fees” for a narrow list of specific, proportionate activities (e.g. collating risk information, obtaining quotes, paying premiums, checking documents). These must be separately itemised, reasonable, and challengeable at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
•They cannot penalise or require leaseholders to use a specific broker, in-house service, or connected intermediary. Doing so creates an impermissible conflict of interest and is explicitly addressed in the reforms to stop agents choosing brokers based on their own remuneration rather than best value for the block.46
The threat of an “extra charge” is effectively a penalty fee designed to extract value that the new rules prohibit. Even before the 2024 Act’s insurance provisions took full effect (targeted for around April 2026, with secondary legislation following the 2025 consultation), such charges were already open to challenge as unreasonable service charges.
Additional angles
•FCA rules (if the agent or their broker is FCA-authorised or an appointed representative for insurance distribution): They must act in the customer’s best interests, disclose commissions, and avoid conflicts. Forcing or penalising broker choice could breach this. Several people in the replies correctly suggest reporting to the FCA.
•RICS/ARMA codes (if the agent is a member): These require full disclosure of all insurance-related income and generally prohibit undisclosed benefits or steering. Tribunals can consider these codes as evidence.
•Your enfranchised position strengthens your hand: As both leaseholders and freeholders (via a residents’ management company or similar), you collectively control the freehold and appoint the managing agent. You can instruct them to obtain competitive quotes from any broker, and the management contract itself may not allow this kind of penalty. If the agent refuses, you can consider terminating their appointment (subject to the contract terms).
What you can do
1Push back in writing — Demand they confirm the legal basis for any extra charge and provide full details of the permitted fee structure under the 2024 Act. Ask for evidence that the charge relates only to permitted activities and is not tied to broker choice.
2Challenge the charge — If they try to add it to the service charge, it can be disputed at the First-tier Tribunal as unreasonable.
3Report it — To the FCA (if regulated), your agent’s professional body (RICS/ARMA), or the Leasehold Advisory Service (https://t.co/2F0fVCBkaG).
4Shop around — Enfranchised blocks have the right to arrange insurance themselves or via an independent broker. Get independent quotes and insist the agent cooperates.
5Consider replacing the agent

[Vicky Spratt @Victoria_Spratt]

The managing agent for the block where I am both a leaseholder and freeholder (enfranchised) just told us they would charge us extra if we didn’t use their in house insurance broker 😂

It’s like when an estate agent has a deal with a particular conveyancer and tries to funnel them business

Egregious

Leasehold reform is great but managing agents are going to be the next scandal !

[Nicholas Beale @Starcourse]

@DavidTaylor85 No-one expects you to apologise. But if only 20% the MPs of the governing party have any Private Sector experience they need to be super-careful not to squash the economy by well-meaning misunderstandings of how wealth and growth are generated.

[christine_a @phoebeBlogs]

@Chioma__Amadi Leave the reply in your drafts overnight and send when you have re-read it in the morning

[Julia Willemyns @jujulemons]

Blair, Burnham, Streeting and Starmer all wrote essays this week. Here’s a summary of what they said for those who can’t be bothered to spend an hour reading about Labour’s favourite pastime: fighting about what it means to be Labour.

Blair's thesis is that Labour lost its nerve after 2007 and needs to rediscover the radical centre. Markets work, the private sector is your friend, competent technocratic government is still the answer, and the biggest transformative force on the horizon is AI, which he sees as a positive revolution that a serious centre-left government should embrace. Miss that wave and you miss everything. TLDR; the model isn't broken. Labour just needs to run it properly and stop indulging the perennial delusion that losing votes to the right means the country secretly wants you to go left.

Burnham, Streeting and Starmer think this misses the point. And they broadly agree on the diagnosis but disagree on the cure.

All three locate the origin of Britain's political unravelling in 2008, not 2007. The financial crisis broke the implicit bargain of modern capitalism: work hard, things get better. When that bargain collapsed and the banks got bailed out while wages stagnated for a decade, people got poorer – but also angry in a deeper, harder-to-satisfy way. And then austerity poured petrol on everything.

The more philosophically interesting disagreement is about what the crisis was actually a crisis of. Blair frames it as a delivery failure: the wrong policies and the wrong positioning. Starmer and Burnham both reach for ‘dignity’. The idea that whole communities (post-industrial, working class, people who didn't go to university) were made to feel invisible. That implies a fundamentally different kind of politics.

Burnham argues that New Labour never actually took Britain off the Thatcherite track. He blames deregulation, privatisation, leaving things to the market for the cost of living crisis. The centre failed people. You can't win them back by reasserting it more confidently. On AI, Burnham calls for tougher regulation of big tech and signals that an active, interventionist state would govern how AI develops rather than leaving it to the market. For Burnham, ungoverned AI is just the latest mechanism by which powerful interests extract value from everyone else.

Streeting is more moderate but lands in similar territory. Inequality is the organising fact of contemporary politics, and treating it as secondary is what produced the crisis in the first place. When the rules stop rewarding effort fairly, resentment grows.

Starmer agrees Britain should be an AI superpower, but where Blair frames AI as an opportunity to be seized, Starmer frames it as a force to be governed. The question isn't just whether AI grows the economy but whether Britain is a rule-maker or a rule-taker, and whether the gains flow to Blyth and Castleford or just to London.

The deepest difference, underneath all of this, is a question about whether the post-war and post-Thatcher economic settlement is fixable or finished. Blair thinks it needs better management and AI is the tool that makes better management possible. The others think the settlement itself was the problem, and are open to the possibility that AI (if ungoverned) compounds it by concentrating power further.