It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
I have 30 characters after my name. I only use them when parents are really getting up my nose.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
Not sure equating your job roles with that of a potential PM is that relevant.
If you want to be PM - and have already accepted a knighthood - then you just have to accept being called "Sir".
We'll all be calling him Keith soon enough anyway.
Also Bonier pointa oit that there is not much high quality polling for the election. The recent glut of polls has all been GOP think tanks.
I think that is a bit unfair as people like Emerson, Washington Post and USA Today have also done polling recently and their message has been the same, the race is a dead heat. The exception is Fox which, as Pop pointed out, actually is regarded as high quality and non-partisan despite being Fox.
Looking at a congressional district level, I would make the following comments:
The top 4 districts for absolute number of early votes are 10, 7, 8 and 1, with 4 and 11 not too far behind. Of the top 4, the 8th is very Democrat, the 10th moderately so, the 7th is a swing seat and the 1st is moderately Republican. In addition, the 4th and 11th are safe Democrat seats, particularly the 11th. So looking at that, you would say by district, the Democrats should be in a good spot.
However, the 10th is the seat of Loudoun County and has the highest number of early voters. Given all the school controversies there, one argument is that the controversy is driving up turnout amongst dissatisfied parents.
In addition, the 2nd, 5th and 6th seats are not too far behind the 4th and 11th for early voting. 2 of these are safe/ safe-ish / Republican and the other one (the 2nd) is a swing seat (R+1 according to the lean).
One thing I might also be worried about on the early vote counts is that the 3rd district, which is a Democrat stronghold, has low early voting turnout relative to other seats. The other seat worse is the 9th, which is heavily Republican, rural and where you would expect a heavy election day turnout.
I'm still happy with my Youngkin bet, I think he will squeeze it out but can also accept it could be a narrow McAuliffe win. As an outside bet, I have put Youngkin's margin at >2.5% at what was then 9/2 as an outside bet.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
Not sure equating your job roles with that of a potential PM is that relevant.
If you want to be PM - and have already accepted a knighthood - then you just have to accept being called "Sir".
We'll all be calling him Keith soon enough anyway.
Sir Ed Davey.
Not sure of your point - But Sir Ed is known as Sir Ed in chamber; the way is should be done.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
I have 30 characters after my name. I only use them when parents are really getting up my nose.
FRSP - Fellow of the Royal Society of Puns
You have to win a competition to be elected to that office.
I entered my ten best puns, sure that one would win. But sadly no pun in ten did.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
I have 30 characters after my name. I only use them when parents are really getting up my nose.
One of the worst cases of diplomatosis that I have encountered...
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labour obsess about this too much though - The northern working class don't really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back up is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the northern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I see the Lobby are bleating about trees falling and bringing down 25KV power lines. Perhaps Network Rail might let them know how long it takes to repair the wires.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football. Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Completely agree. So boring. I’d love to see him at Spurs, but don’t think they’d have him
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Completely agree. So boring. I’d love to see him at Spurs, but don’t think they’d have him
He was linked with Manchester United earlier on this month.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football. Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Can anyone explain the police's behaviour on Insulate Britain? Why has no-one been charged? Why does the government need to bring in injunctions around protest? Surely there is no need to do this. There must be existing laws around blocking highways that they could be charged under.
I wonder if the government wants an excuse to bring in lots of new anti-protest laws. Maybe the met have been scarred by the Sarah Everard situation. I don't know. I just find it unfathomable.
Can anyone explain the police's behaviour on Insulate Britain? Why has no-one been charged? Why does the government need to bring in injunctions around protest? Surely there is no need to do this. There must be existing laws around blocking highways that they could be charged under.
I wonder if the government wants an excuse to bring in lots of new anti-protest laws. Maybe the met have been scarred by the Sarah Everard situation. I don't know. I just find it unfathomable.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football. Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
You're counting Spurs as a 'big club' ?
They have the best ground in Europe, after Anfield.
Their training ground is the best in the world.
IIRC Spurs also got to the final of the Champions League a couple of years ago, forget who they lost to.
Plenty of Halloween tat has made it through the Felixstowe container logjam, judging by the stuff festooning so many of the houses round our way.
However, the most sinister item was a home made effort: a body wrapped in black bin bags hanging from a gibbet.
Happy Halloween indeed!
I went to a Halloween party (my first - good fun) and hastily went round to Sainsbury for suitably sinister garb. They had one left, and said their delivery had been cut by 80%.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
I'm going to disagree - it's not a bad piece and the point about "collective amnesia" is entirely valid. To be a Conservative supporter since 2010 is to have required an almost double-jointed flexibility in terms of policy positions. In all fairness, Government in theory is far easier than Government in practice and it's particularly memorable how Johnson campaigned almost as an opposition leader against a Government in which he served as Foreign Secretary.
The other side of the argument is the old "what would Labour have done differently?" mantra. In an alternate universe where Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019 and John McDonnell had been CoE through Covid, I suspect the largesse would have been as spectacular if not more so - the opposition Conservative line of defence presumably would not be "why aren't you spending more?" but a stolid call for fiscal responsibility disguised as spending cuts.
In truth, the projections on the deficit aren't too bad after this year and perhaps next - we might even run a small surplus by the end of this Parliament but the damage in terms of debt has been done. In addition, as was pointed out yesterday, the future demands on the State for the provision of welfare for the ageing population are going to be a big issue and the next economic downturn is going to get the deficit building again. Current levels of growth won't be sustained ad infinitum.
The problem is or will be for those looking for sound management of the public finances are the demographics.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Completely agree. So boring. I’d love to see him at Spurs, but don’t think they’d have him
He was linked with Manchester United earlier on this month.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Completely agree. So boring. I’d love to see him at Spurs, but don’t think they’d have him
He was linked with Manchester United earlier on this month.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
Just back from my lunchtime constitutional round the streets of East Ham. Regrettably, that cultural abomination, "trick or treat" looks to be getting another outing. I suppose had this morning's rain fallen this evening we'd have been spared much of it.
I suppose I could drone on ad nauseam and ad infinitum about the insidious Americanisation of Britain but what would be the point? The Europeans are both the new and the old enemy and because the US are not much cop at football, cricket or rugby (excluding 1950 in Brazil I imagine) we don't have the faux enmity on the sporting field we enjoy with the Australians, Canadians, West Indians and New Zealanders.
I missed this morning's discussion on immigration - in my part of London, probably one of the cheapest, the arrival of workers from other parts of the EU after 2005 had an immediate impact. The early arrivals were the Poles and the Lithuanians (to a much lesser extent, Latvians and Estonians for some reason) and before long we had specialist food shops and the like for the growing community which initially soaked up the rental market and in time went into the home ownership market.
Most of them have now gone - some have been absorbed into the community no doubt but my suspicion is the wage differential which brought them here (especially the skilled workers) has disappeared and they can now earn the kind of money in Poland they could in the UK - one of the benefits of the Single Market some might argue, the equalisation of incomes and costs.
The second wave of incomers has been the Romanians and Bulgarians and they are now in East Ham. They too now have their specialist food shops, barber shops and the like and a network of vans to carry goods and people from the UK to Romania and Bulgaria.
Has the UK leaving the EU made a big difference? Not really - most either applied legally for settled status or exist under the radar. We know the housing issues this has caused - multiple occupancy in homes, illegal dwellings in gardens etc. There's also rough sleeping especially in summer. However, there seems no doubt the wage differential between the UK and Romania/Bulgaria remains considerable.
One side trend I have noticed is there was at one point quite an influx of sub-Saharan Africans primarily from the former Portuguese colonies who seemed to be able to enter the EU via Portugal and come to the UK. That has been turned off by the decision to leave the EU.
All of this, in my area, is dwarfed by the population movements within the Tamil and Muslim communities as people come and go from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
There are sluggish signs East Ham and Barking are moving "up" with the construction of new blocks of flats bringing a new wave of younger people into the area albeit for most of them on a rental or shared equity basis.
That's an interesting point you made about the 'Southern Europeans' being actually migrants to Southern European countries. Well you mentioned Portugal but I suspect the same applies to Spain etc.
I've been curious as to the large increase in employment from those countries.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Completely agree. So boring. I’d love to see him at Spurs, but don’t think they’d have him
He was linked with Manchester United earlier on this month.
Can anyone explain the police's behaviour on Insulate Britain? Why has no-one been charged? Why does the government need to bring in injunctions around protest? Surely there is no need to do this. There must be existing laws around blocking highways that they could be charged under.
I wonder if the government wants an excuse to bring in lots of new anti-protest laws. Maybe the met have been scarred by the Sarah Everard situation. I don't know. I just find it unfathomable.
But it’s not just the met policing them, it’s the various forces that are responsible for parts of the M25 too.
I don’t understand the approach either. The protesters appear to be making fools of the police and the party of law and order.
Unfortunately it has led to some people taking matters into their own hands at the policing has been ineffective.
It feels like various police forces arbitrarily decide not to enforce the law for political purposes sometimes. It is crazy they dedicate resources to policing offence on Twitter but ignore people blocking highways.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Completely agree. So boring. I’d love to see him at Spurs, but don’t think they’d have him
He was linked with Manchester United earlier on this month.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can write them off as Labourites?
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Absolutely, we savers have been persecuted for too long with really low interest rates.
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can write them off as Labourites?
No, just not independent like we are led to believe.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can write them off as Labourites?
I would say so. Time to raise rates.
Although, Danny Blanchflower, no right wing economist, said the energy cost spike heralds a recession if you look at the historical record.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Absolutely, we savers have been persecuted for too long with really low interest rates.
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
I'd be all for that - I only use my credit card as back up but the rate is in the 30pc,
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football. Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
You're counting Spurs as a 'big club' ?
They have the best ground in Europe, after Anfield.
Their training ground is the best in the world.
IIRC Spurs also got to the final of the Champions League a couple of years ago, forget who they lost to.
How many times have Spurs been champions of England ?
And were any of those during your lifetime.
Spurs are like Newcastle, Everton and Leeds - a club which has to claim to be a big club because its achievements happened multiple decades ago.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
I'm going to disagree - it's not a bad piece and the point about "collective amnesia" is entirely valid. To be a Conservative supporter since 2010 is to have required an almost double-jointed flexibility in terms of policy positions. In all fairness, Government in theory is far easier than Government in practice and it's particularly memorable how Johnson campaigned almost as an opposition leader against a Government in which he served as Foreign Secretary.
The other side of the argument is the old "what would Labour have done differently?" mantra. In an alternate universe where Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019 and John McDonnell had been CoE through Covid, I suspect the largesse would have been as spectacular if not more so - the opposition Conservative line of defence presumably would not be "why aren't you spending more?" but a stolid call for fiscal responsibility disguised as spending cuts.
In truth, the projections on the deficit aren't too bad after this year and perhaps next - we might even run a small surplus by the end of this Parliament but the damage in terms of debt has been done. In addition, as was pointed out yesterday, the future demands on the State for the provision of welfare for the ageing population are going to be a big issue and the next economic downturn is going to get the deficit building again. Current levels of growth won't be sustained ad infinitum.
The problem is or will be for those looking for sound management of the public finances are the demographics.
I agree - sometime Rawnsley does tend to pen polemics, but today he does nail the tightrope the government is trying to walk, and the risk they are taking relying upon growth to make their figures come good while all the time Brexit is eating away at the economy under the radar.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Not yet. The BoE, like the rest of the world's central banks, knows the effects of raising rates upon the colossal pile of debt that governments, companies and private individuals have now accumulated, through the period of sequential disasters since 2008 and their pernicious effects.
I therefore suspect that they'll be very reluctant indeed to see rates rise because of the fear that higher rates will stifle the recovery. Any rises are likely to be slow and modest, and I doubt they'll even get as high as 1% unless we're in for very high inflation and/or a sustained period of inflation.
I still think that the current bout of inflation is transitory, and if a majority on the MPC feels likewise then they'll be in absolutely no hurry to raise bank rate.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Oh blimey. Sorry to have upset you
Mmm, I bet. But I'm simply noting your dedication to the cause. Because it's quite something. Poor "Sir" Keir can't do a thing right for you, it seems.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
I'm going to disagree - it's not a bad piece and the point about "collective amnesia" is entirely valid. To be a Conservative supporter since 2010 is to have required an almost double-jointed flexibility in terms of policy positions. In all fairness, Government in theory is far easier than Government in practice and it's particularly memorable how Johnson campaigned almost as an opposition leader against a Government in which he served as Foreign Secretary.
The other side of the argument is the old "what would Labour have done differently?" mantra. In an alternate universe where Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019 and John McDonnell had been CoE through Covid, I suspect the largesse would have been as spectacular if not more so - the opposition Conservative line of defence presumably would not be "why aren't you spending more?" but a stolid call for fiscal responsibility disguised as spending cuts.
In truth, the projections on the deficit aren't too bad after this year and perhaps next - we might even run a small surplus by the end of this Parliament but the damage in terms of debt has been done. In addition, as was pointed out yesterday, the future demands on the State for the provision of welfare for the ageing population are going to be a big issue and the next economic downturn is going to get the deficit building again. Current levels of growth won't be sustained ad infinitum.
The problem is or will be for those looking for sound management of the public finances are the demographics.
I agree - sometime Rawnsley does tend to pen polemics, but today he does nail the tightrope the government is trying to walk, and the risk they are taking relying upon growth to make their figures come good while all the time Brexit is eating away at the economy under the radar.
Per capita GDP is not much higher than it was in 2007 yet we are spending a lot more on health and pensions. This is the fundamental issue.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Not yet. The BoE, like the rest of the world's central banks, knows the effects of raising rates upon the colossal pile of debt that governments, companies and private individuals have now accumulated, through the period of sequential disasters since 2008 and their pernicious effects.
I therefore suspect that they'll be very reluctant indeed to see rates rise because of the fear that higher rates will stifle the recovery. Any rises are likely to be slow and modest, and I doubt they'll even get as high as 1% unless we're in for very high inflation and/or a sustained period of inflation.
I still think that the current bout of inflation is transitory, and if a majority on the MPC feels likewise then they'll be in absolutely no hurry to raise bank rate.
That all makes sense.
But we've got to get off of these crazy low rates at some point. And IMHO it should be now.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Not yet. The BoE, like the rest of the world's central banks, knows the effects of raising rates upon the colossal pile of debt that governments, companies and private individuals have now accumulated, through the period of sequential disasters since 2008 and their pernicious effects.
I therefore suspect that they'll be very reluctant indeed to see rates rise because of the fear that higher rates will stifle the recovery. Any rises are likely to be slow and modest, and I doubt they'll even get as high as 1% unless we're in for very high inflation and/or a sustained period of inflation.
I still think that the current bout of inflation is transitory, and if a majority on the MPC feels likewise then they'll be in absolutely no hurry to raise bank rate.
Private households, on average, are actually in the best shape in decades due to reduced spending during the pandemic.
"Getting to a world cup semi final and the final of the Euros doesn’t count." It's more than enough if your name is Sir Bobby Robson.
Bobby Robson never got us to the final of the Euros.
Which is why I said "more than enough"
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
It's interesting to wonder, would a big club go for Southgate off the back of his record with England? I suspect the answer is "probably not".
Spurs might, hearing Nuno might get sacked today.
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Completely agree. So boring. I’d love to see him at Spurs, but don’t think they’d have him
He was linked with Manchester United earlier on this month.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
You're forgetting the long march through the institutions!
Seriously though I'm sure Keir is no wolf in sheep's clothing. If he was he'd probably use his title as a helpful disguise.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Absolutely, we savers have been persecuted for too long with really low interest rates.
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
No. Yet another consideration for the Bank will be that an awful lot of savers have gone into riskier asset classes to get some sort of return on their money. High interest rates will just whack all of them as well as property owners. It will only help those very risk averse savers (mostly old people) who continue to keep all their money in effectively zero return savings accounts.
Now, normally one would expect policies that disproportionately benefit risk averse elderly people to be implemented, but consider: (a) more old people will lose out more heavily on crashing asset prices (i.e. a great chunk disappearing off the value of their houses) than will gain from a few percent per year on their bank savings; and, more importantly, (b) the BoE isn't directly answerable at the ballot box and knows the colossal damage that high interest rates will do to the economy in its present state.
So, whilst one strongly suspects that you are joking in the first place, it's nonetheless the case that the likelihood of anyone getting 5%, let alone 10%, interest on cash in the bank at any point in the foreseeable future is as near as makes no difference to zero.
On an entirely separate matter, I think Biden is currently value for re-election. Afghanistan is increasingly in the rear view mirror, the Delta surge is now declining, that will in turn mean the economy will rapidly return to health, inflation is looking temporary, supply chains are likely to have spare capacity after the Christmas rush, and Biden is about to get two mega-bills passed.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Not yet. The BoE, like the rest of the world's central banks, knows the effects of raising rates upon the colossal pile of debt that governments, companies and private individuals have now accumulated, through the period of sequential disasters since 2008 and their pernicious effects.
I therefore suspect that they'll be very reluctant indeed to see rates rise because of the fear that higher rates will stifle the recovery. Any rises are likely to be slow and modest, and I doubt they'll even get as high as 1% unless we're in for very high inflation and/or a sustained period of inflation.
I still think that the current bout of inflation is transitory, and if a majority on the MPC feels likewise then they'll be in absolutely no hurry to raise bank rate.
Private households, on average, are actually in the best shape in decades due to reduced spending during the pandemic.
Is that true?
Edit to add:
It's quite possible that the median household has seen an improvement, while the total stock of household debt has risen. (I.e. most families are better off, but there are a few who are a lot worse off.) It's also possible this exaggerates the issue because the denominator (GDP) fell by 5 or 6 points.
That's an interesting point you made about the 'Southern Europeans' being actually migrants to Southern European countries. Well you mentioned Portugal but I suspect the same applies to Spain etc.
I've been curious as to the large increase in employment from those countries.
Just before the pandemic, we had a cafe and a couple of food shops open in East Ham tailored to the sub-Saharan African community from the former Portuguese colonies so places like Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique etc.
I did a little research and found there were bi-lateral arrangements set up after Portugal withdrew from these areas in 1975 which enabled the citizens of these countries to apply for Portuguese citizenship.
Once in Portugal and therefore inside the EU, they could travel within the Union (as it was) and could come to Britain for work, education etc.
I presume with the coming of the pandemic and the UK no longer being part of the EU, those who had come here have left - the cafe and food shops have closed.
I do not know if a similar arrangement existed for Spain's former African colonies - there was a Spanish Morocco until the late 50s but that has reduced to just Ceuta and Melilla. In addition, there have been documented reports of African refugees seeking to reach the Canary Islands - a number unfortunately have been lost in the dangerous waters (it's roughly 60 miles from the Moroccan coast).
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Oh blimey. Sorry to have upset you
Mmm, I bet. But I'm simply noting your dedication to the cause. Because it's quite something. Poor "Sir" Keir can't do a thing right for you, it seems.
Has anyone ever seen Isam and Paul Gambacinni in the same room?
On an entirely separate matter, I think Biden is currently value for re-election. Afghanistan is increasingly in the rear view mirror, the Delta surge is now declining, that will in turn mean the economy will rapidly return to health, inflation is looking temporary, supply chains are likely to have spare capacity after the Christmas rush, and Biden is about to get two mega-bills passed.
There's something in this, I always thought the attacks from the right on Afghanistan were somewhat synthetic and not very weighty. However, I'd still lay Biden at 4/1 if I wanted my money tied up for years.
Just back from my lunchtime constitutional round the streets of East Ham. Regrettably, that cultural abomination, "trick or treat" looks to be getting another outing. I suppose had this morning's rain fallen this evening we'd have been spared much of it.
I suppose I could drone on ad nauseam and ad infinitum about the insidious Americanisation of Britain but what would be the point? The Europeans are both the new and the old enemy and because the US are not much cop at football, cricket or rugby (excluding 1950 in Brazil I imagine) we don't have the faux enmity on the sporting field we enjoy with the Australians, Canadians, West Indians and New Zealanders.
I missed this morning's discussion on immigration - in my part of London, probably one of the cheapest, the arrival of workers from other parts of the EU after 2005 had an immediate impact. The early arrivals were the Poles and the Lithuanians (to a much lesser extent, Latvians and Estonians for some reason) and before long we had specialist food shops and the like for the growing community which initially soaked up the rental market and in time went into the home ownership market.
Most of them have now gone - some have been absorbed into the community no doubt but my suspicion is the wage differential which brought them here (especially the skilled workers) has disappeared and they can now earn the kind of money in Poland they could in the UK - one of the benefits of the Single Market some might argue, the equalisation of incomes and costs.
The second wave of incomers has been the Romanians and Bulgarians and they are now in East Ham. They too now have their specialist food shops, barber shops and the like and a network of vans to carry goods and people from the UK to Romania and Bulgaria.
Has the UK leaving the EU made a big difference? Not really - most either applied legally for settled status or exist under the radar. We know the housing issues this has caused - multiple occupancy in homes, illegal dwellings in gardens etc. There's also rough sleeping especially in summer. However, there seems no doubt the wage differential between the UK and Romania/Bulgaria remains considerable.
One side trend I have noticed is there was at one point quite an influx of sub-Saharan Africans primarily from the former Portuguese colonies who seemed to be able to enter the EU via Portugal and come to the UK. That has been turned off by the decision to leave the EU.
All of this, in my area, is dwarfed by the population movements within the Tamil and Muslim communities as people come and go from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
There are sluggish signs East Ham and Barking are moving "up" with the construction of new blocks of flats bringing a new wave of younger people into the area albeit for most of them on a rental or shared equity basis.
That's an interesting point you made about the 'Southern Europeans' being actually migrants to Southern European countries. Well you mentioned Portugal but I suspect the same applies to Spain etc.
I've been curious as to the large increase in employment from those countries.
Yes, there are communities of Portuguese Gujerati origin, Dutch Somali and Italian Indians* in Leicester. It seems to not have been a short term stay in their European countries though, often ten or more years.
*The woman who sells me the the best samosas in the city speaks Italian and Punjabi.
On an entirely separate matter, I think Biden is currently value for re-election. Afghanistan is increasingly in the rear view mirror, the Delta surge is now declining, that will in turn mean the economy will rapidly return to health, inflation is looking temporary, supply chains are likely to have spare capacity after the Christmas rush, and Biden is about to get two mega-bills passed.
Given how long Delta is taking to work its way through the UK I suspect that the USA has a long way still to go.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Absolutely, we savers have been persecuted for too long with really low interest rates.
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
It will only help those very risk averse savers (mostly old people) who continue to keep all their money in effectively zero return savings accounts.
Evening. Yes it's true I forget to call Sir Lewis Sir Lewis cus he's very much still a contender - And I don't think the commentators tend to refer him that way.
Not sure how Sir Andy SNP type managed to wangle one given his political views.
It shows a pretty big jump during the pandemic, so it's clearly not all denominator related.
Is it showing an increase in mortgage debt, as people have moved house during the pandemic, especially in and around the most expensive areas of the country?
Mortgage debt will be a severely laggy indicator of increasing house prices over decades - and is not particularly indicative of a problem, in the same way as a rise in credit card debt or personal loans might be.
It's quite interesting watching all the EU-enthusiast types flouncing away from following the politico.eu because they published an unacceptable article by unacceptable Alex Wickham, involving an alleged mistranslation of Macron's Prime Minster's (Castex?) letter to UVDL.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
The boss thing? Oh yes. Come across it a few times. Although not actually a great readacross to isam's "Sir Keir" - that's more a bit more subtle and also slightly different. Still, main thing is he stops doing it and I'm sure he will now he knows it annoys me.
Yes, the K is interesting. You'd have thought that having got it for genuine graft rather than etherea would mean it's an asset. But it isn't and some of that is down to what you say - DPP has a stasi bloodless functionary vibe to it. Bright side though is that maybe older folk like it. More respect for authority, more on the side of cops over robbers. Maybe.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
Not sure equating your job roles with that of a potential PM is that relevant.
If you want to be PM - and have already accepted a knighthood - then you just have to accept being called "Sir".
We'll all be calling him Keith soon enough anyway.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
Not sure equating your job roles with that of a potential PM is that relevant.
If you want to be PM - and have already accepted a knighthood - then you just have to accept being called "Sir".
We'll all be calling him Keith soon enough anyway.
Sir Ed Davey.
Sir Ed Davey may be calling him Sir.
His party may call him Sir Plustorequirements first.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can write them off as Labourites?
No, just not independent like we are led to believe.
Be amazed if they don't raise in Nov. It would be really odd.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
Yes, I think there is something to that. Class privilege is well established in Britain, but there is something of a threat in an upwardly mobile person ascending to the top. It rather throws the spotlight on why the observer remains an "oik".
I think that this is part of the reason that some PBers focus so much on proving that Starmer has benefited from privilege at school etc.
It is as pathetic to be bothered by Keir wanting to be known as Keir instead of Sir Keir, as it is to be bothered by Boris wanting to be known as Boris instead of Johnson.
Whatever given name people want to go by, that's up to them and I couldn't care less. Whether that be Keir, Boris, or Josephine but only on Saturdays.
If Keith didn't want to be known as SKS - and especicialy if he's LOTO - he should not have accepted the title.
Absolutely preposterous bollocks.
Sometimes you see people write their names out with all sorts of acronyms of their titles etc that they have but most of the time people don't.
I have an honours degree and a Masters degree that means I could put those titles in my name if I wanted to, but I wouldn't unless it was absolutely relevant because it's preposterous to do so in normal circumstances.
Not sure equating your job roles with that of a potential PM is that relevant.
If you want to be PM - and have already accepted a knighthood - then you just have to accept being called "Sir".
We'll all be calling him Keith soon enough anyway.
Sir Ed Davey.
Sir Ed Davey may be calling him Sir.
His party may call him Sir Plustorequirements first.
When he was 8 (ish), he played El-ahrairah (the spiritual overseer of all rabbits - suitable for LibDem leader, no?) in Watership Down and he got to be called "Lord" by all the other rabbits.
And that's nearly my last repeatable Ed Davey anecdote.
I think “around 90%” is a stretch when the real number is 98%…
And he might like to reflect on if it’s only the French that can’t provide the data maybe it was only the French who were breaking the rules historically?
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
The boss thing? Oh yes. Come across it a few times. Although not actually a great readacross to isam's "Sir Keir" - that's more a bit more subtle and also slightly different. Still, main thing is he stops doing it and I'm sure he will now he knows it annoys me.
Yes, the K is interesting. You'd have thought that having got it for genuine graft rather than etherea would mean it's an asset. But it isn't and some of that is down to what you say - DPP has a stasi bloodless functionary vibe to it. Bright side though is that maybe older folk like it. More respect for authority, more on the side of cops over robbers. Maybe.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
If it makes you feel better Orwell makes this point in Down and Out; he says English tramps don't envy successful professionals because they have an instinctive revulsion for the hard work and self discipline involved in becoming one.
Plenty of Halloween tat has made it through the Felixstowe container logjam, judging by the stuff festooning so many of the houses round our way.
However, the most sinister item was a home made effort: a body wrapped in black bin bags hanging from a gibbet.
Happy Halloween indeed!
I went to a Halloween party (my first - good fun) and hastily went round to Sainsbury for suitably sinister garb. They had one left, and said their delivery had been cut by 80%.
Huh. Told you Brexit wouldn't work out well.
If they still had one left, it sounds like a good thing
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Indeed - the farce has to stop - He should be known as SKS in the chamber or relnquish the title.
You never use people’s name in the Commons
Your average MP is a “honourable member”
A privy counsellor is a “right honourable member”
With SKS I don’t know if he would qualify as a “learned” (lawyer - but might be QC or judge not just DPP) or “gallant”… (I know it’s military but maybe a knight would count…)
[I know they’ve been dropped, but imagine calling LOTO the Right Honourable, Learned and Gallant member for Holborn and St Pancras)
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Indeed - the farce has to stop - He should be known as SKS in the chamber or relnquish the title.
You never use people’s name in the Commons
Your average MP is a “honourable member”
A privy counsellor is a “right honourable member”
With SKS I don’t know if he would qualify as a “learned” (lawyer - but might be QC or judge not just DPP) or “gallant”… (I know it’s military but maybe a knight would count…)
[I know they’ve been dropped, but imagine calling LOTO the Right Honourable, Learned and Gallant member for Holborn and St Pancras)
The speaker refers to MPs by their name - so you're factually incorrect.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Absolutely, we savers have been persecuted for too long with really low interest rates.
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
It will only help those very risk averse savers (mostly old people) who continue to keep all their money in effectively zero return savings accounts.
Effectively minus 2/3 pc surely?
Accounting for inflation, yes - and things may get worse before they get better, of course.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
The boss thing? Oh yes. Come across it a few times. Although not actually a great readacross to isam's "Sir Keir" - that's more a bit more subtle and also slightly different. Still, main thing is he stops doing it and I'm sure he will now he knows it annoys me.
Yes, the K is interesting. You'd have thought that having got it for genuine graft rather than etherea would mean it's an asset. But it isn't and some of that is down to what you say - DPP has a stasi bloodless functionary vibe to it. Bright side though is that maybe older folk like it. More respect for authority, more on the side of cops over robbers. Maybe.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
I think you are confusing two things
- The kind who pretend to be toffs but actually went to the local comp. Invariably wankers in the 1st degree. - The new Upper 10,000. "And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs".
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
Yes, I think there is something to that. Class privilege is well established in Britain, but there is something of a threat in an upwardly mobile person ascending to the top. It rather throws the spotlight on why the observer remains an "oik".
I think that this is part of the reason that some PBers focus so much on proving that Starmer has benefited from privilege at school etc.
I would say that social class is of declining significance in determining privilege. Other factors are more important, for instance inherited wealth; which is different to class.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Absolutely, we savers have been persecuted for too long with really low interest rates.
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
It will only help those very risk averse savers (mostly old people) who continue to keep all their money in effectively zero return savings accounts.
Effectively minus 2/3 pc surely?
Accounting for inflation, yes - and things may get worse before they get better, of course.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
Yes, I think there is something to that. Class privilege is well established in Britain, but there is something of a threat in an upwardly mobile person ascending to the top. It rather throws the spotlight on why the observer remains an "oik".
I think that this is part of the reason that some PBers focus so much on proving that Starmer has benefited from privilege at school etc.
At odds, too, with 'working class aspiration' in its Thatcherite spirit of getting on and UP. Wanting your kids to do better than you, to make that jump. With this attitude you'd rather they didn't. It's actually more in line with the trad left collectivist call of "rise WITH your class not out of it." Yet it benefits the Tories atm. Strange and messy world.
Lovely article by Andrew Rawnsley today in which he manages without effort to assert that the Tories are overtaxing and underspending simultaneously. A masterclass in how to write for the Guardian/Observer audience while saying nothing of any interest or use whatever.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
This is, of course, because the Observer is a tax-and-spend supporting paper, Labour are the tax-and-spend party, and the Tories have driven the proverbial tanks over their flower beds. So what does Labour do? They argue for even higher taxes and/or borrowing than the Government, and end up risking Reeves being portrayed as the spiritual successor to McDonnell; they argue for lower taxes and nobody will take them seriously; or they could argue for different taxes to what the Government has proposed, but seem to lack the will to do so - especially given that the three obvious targets for heavier taxation are property wealth (largely held by the elderly, upon whom we must not shit under any circumstances,) big business (except that Labour trying to harp on about the Tories fucking business over with Brexit, and then promptly proposing to fuck business over with taxes, is somewhat difficult,) or simply throwing their hands up in the air and pledging to cricket bat most of the adult population with substantially higher rates of income tax to get public spending closer to Scandinavian levels. None of these options seems especially promising from the point of view of increasing their electability.
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
RE:inflation
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can right them off as Labourites?
Absolutely, we savers have been persecuted for too long with really low interest rates.
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
It will only help those very risk averse savers (mostly old people) who continue to keep all their money in effectively zero return savings accounts.
Effectively minus 2/3 pc surely?
Accounting for inflation, yes - and things may get worse before they get better, of course.
It shows a pretty big jump during the pandemic, so it's clearly not all denominator related.
Is it showing an increase in mortgage debt, as people have moved house during the pandemic, especially in and around the most expensive areas of the country?
Mortgage debt will be a severely laggy indicator of increasing house prices over decades - and is not particularly indicative of a problem, in the same way as a rise in credit card debt or personal loans might be.
The conclusions are (roughly) that the middle classes with stable incomes saw their savings rates increase, and they paid down debt. But that those on hourly wages and with lower incomes did not.
According to the piece, another contributor to the rising household debt number is people with mortgages choosing to defer payments.
If SKS want's to just be known as Keir Starmer in the chamber he should have the good grace to relinquish his title.
Maybe he does it just to annoy you
That would be "delusions of grandeur"
You're quite right. Let's go in the other direction: What's it to you?
I'm anti Blair's party and fairly sure Keith is utilising loopholes so that he comes across as more common for the sake of working class votes.
Tribalist wittering, then.
Perhaps - But my point is valid enough.
If you accept a title and then want drop it when you're one of the few potential candidates to be PM then something is amiss.
Being honest about going to a private school and advertising the facthe is a knight of the realm isn't going to help Labour's efforts to contrast themselves with the Tories as out of touch posh boys though
Labouor obsess about this too much though - The northern working class dont really give a toss , the only thing that gets their back is is faking it . If you look at Boris's biggest fans it is the nothern working class precisely because they find Boris genuine (in the sense of not trying to hide who he is ) and not patronising
I completely agree. The contortions Sir Keir's fans twist themselves into because they are so desperate for him to be seen as legit working class are ludicrous. The plain fact is that, if you are going to sell yourselves as the other side of the coin to lofty elites, having a privately educated Knight of the Realm, best known for trying to thwart Brexit, as your front man is a tough ask
Don't know about SKS's fans but his haters certainly go to a lot of trouble. Not easy to keep banging on about his "private school education" as if it were remotely akin to toff factory Eton, or to always always always make sure to refer to him as "Sir Keir" in best passive aggressive style, like the bloke passed over for promotion calling his erstwhile mate who got the job "boss" even when they're down the pub, but yet they seem to manage it, these people. Don't they?
Do people do that Boss thing?
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
Yes, I think there is something to that. Class privilege is well established in Britain, but there is something of a threat in an upwardly mobile person ascending to the top. It rather throws the spotlight on why the observer remains an "oik".
I think that this is part of the reason that some PBers focus so much on proving that Starmer has benefited from privilege at school etc.
At odds, too, with 'working class aspiration' in its Thatcherite spirit of getting on and UP. Wanting your kids to do better than you, to make that jump. With this attitude you'd rather they didn't. It's actually more in line with the trad left collectivist call of "rise WITH your class not out of it." Yet it benefits the Tories atm. Strange and messy world.
Look, compared to the last three, maybe even the last seven labour leaders, Kier's ok. I think he's been on the wrong side of the argument on many, many times, but from my perspective that's what I'd expect of a Labour leader. But - didn't his dad own a toolmaking business? He's hardly starting out of the rough streets of Harpurhey (feel free to insert your own local equivalent). I don't object to that, of course. But accusations that people are trying to paint you as middle class when you actually are middle class feel a bit misty. I may be wrong about his background, but my understanding was that his background is fairly middling.
Comments
The early vote tallies are here by district:
https://www.vpap.org/elections/early-voting/november-2021-election/
Looking at a congressional district level, I would make the following comments:
The top 4 districts for absolute number of early votes are 10, 7, 8 and 1, with 4 and 11 not too far behind. Of the top 4, the 8th is very Democrat, the 10th moderately so, the 7th is a swing seat and the 1st is moderately Republican. In addition, the 4th and 11th are safe Democrat seats, particularly the 11th. So looking at that, you would say by district, the Democrats should be in a good spot.
However, the 10th is the seat of Loudoun County and has the highest number of early voters. Given all the school controversies there, one argument is that the controversy is driving up turnout amongst dissatisfied parents.
In addition, the 2nd, 5th and 6th seats are not too far behind the 4th and 11th for early voting. 2 of these are safe/ safe-ish / Republican and the other one (the 2nd) is a swing seat (R+1 according to the lean).
One thing I might also be worried about on the early vote counts is that the 3rd district, which is a Democrat stronghold, has low early voting turnout relative to other seats. The other seat worse is the 9th, which is heavily Republican, rural and where you would expect a heavy election day turnout.
I'm still happy with my Youngkin bet, I think he will squeeze it out but can also accept it could be a narrow McAuliffe win. As an outside bet, I have put Youngkin's margin at >2.5% at what was then 9/2 as an outside bet.
I entered my ten best puns, sure that one would win. But sadly no pun in ten did.
I insist you all refer to be as Dr Alistair.
@tlg86 I agree with you. If Southgate carries on in a similar way then a knighthood when he retires would be deserved. Then again it's not something I care about either way. There are more important things to woory about than who gets a knighthood.
TBF Rawnsley is usually better than this piece of egregious rubbish. But it's noticeable that this is the standard line from critics of this government at the moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/31/mr-sunak-rising-taxes-and-soaring-prices-do-not-add-up-to-an-age-of-optimism
The one thing that isn't discussed enough, the turgid nature of Southgate's England's style of play.
I know I'm spoiled at Liverpool with Klopp's sexy football. Southgate's teams put me to sleep.
Related, there's a piece by Halligan in Telegraph warning that all Sunak's plans rest on growth of 6% a year this and next.
What could possibly go wrong.
I’ve got one art O Level.
It did nothing for me,
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1500240/Manchester-United-news-Gareth-Southgate-Ole-Gunnar-Solskjaer
I don’t understand the approach either. The protesters appear to be making fools of the police and the party of law and order.
Unfortunately it has led to some people taking matters into their own hands at the policing has been ineffective.
Their training ground is the best in the world.
IIRC Spurs also got to the final of the Champions League a couple of years ago, forget who they lost to.
Huh. Told you Brexit wouldn't work out well.
The other side of the argument is the old "what would Labour have done differently?" mantra. In an alternate universe where Jeremy Corbyn won in 2019 and John McDonnell had been CoE through Covid, I suspect the largesse would have been as spectacular if not more so - the opposition Conservative line of defence presumably would not be "why aren't you spending more?" but a stolid call for fiscal responsibility disguised as spending cuts.
In truth, the projections on the deficit aren't too bad after this year and perhaps next - we might even run a small surplus by the end of this Parliament but the damage in terms of debt has been done. In addition, as was pointed out yesterday, the future demands on the State for the provision of welfare for the ageing population are going to be a big issue and the next economic downturn is going to get the deficit building again. Current levels of growth won't be sustained ad infinitum.
The problem is or will be for those looking for sound management of the public finances are the demographics.
Villa? Wolves? Southampton?
The Tories have successfully managed to align themselves with the position of a majority of the electorate, and especially that of the huge cohort of older votes who turn out enthusiastically, on both social and economic matters. It is small wonder that Labour is behind in the sainted opinion polls in mid-term against an administration still trying to crawl out of the mire of one of the biggest and most expensive disasters in the country's peacetime history. How do Labour get back in the game? Pray that inflation becomes a stubborn feature of the economic landscape rather than a transitory blip, I reckon. Absent that the Government looks like it should win the next election easily.
I've been curious as to the large increase in employment from those countries.
Both ended up winning the league there.
It's time for the Bank of England to raise rates isn't it?
If they don't then we can write them off as Labourites?
The BoE need to push interest rates up to 10% help us savers recover.
Although, Danny Blanchflower, no right wing economist, said the energy cost spike heralds a recession if you look at the historical record.
Stagflation time?
This near zero foolishness isn't helping anyone.
And were any of those during your lifetime.
Spurs are like Newcastle, Everton and Leeds - a club which has to claim to be a big club because its achievements happened multiple decades ago.
I therefore suspect that they'll be very reluctant indeed to see rates rise because of the fear that higher rates will stifle the recovery. Any rises are likely to be slow and modest, and I doubt they'll even get as high as 1% unless we're in for very high inflation and/or a sustained period of inflation.
I still think that the current bout of inflation is transitory, and if a majority on the MPC feels likewise then they'll be in absolutely no hurry to raise bank rate.
The Sir thing underlines his apparatchik background. Is there an uncooler job in the country than DPP? He is in nominal charge of all police prosecutions including for illegal immigration, smoking the odd spliff and everything else. How does this play wiv da yoof? He is The Man. He is Mr Julie's been working for the Drug Squad.
But we've got to get off of these crazy low rates at some point. And IMHO it should be now.
Seriously though I'm sure Keir is no wolf in sheep's clothing. If he was he'd probably use his title as a helpful disguise.
Now, normally one would expect policies that disproportionately benefit risk averse elderly people to be implemented, but consider: (a) more old people will lose out more heavily on crashing asset prices (i.e. a great chunk disappearing off the value of their houses) than will gain from a few percent per year on their bank savings; and, more importantly, (b) the BoE isn't directly answerable at the ballot box and knows the colossal damage that high interest rates will do to the economy in its present state.
So, whilst one strongly suspects that you are joking in the first place, it's nonetheless the case that the likelihood of anyone getting 5%, let alone 10%, interest on cash in the bank at any point in the foreseeable future is as near as makes no difference to zero.
Edit to add:
It's quite possible that the median household has seen an improvement, while the total stock of household debt has risen. (I.e. most families are better off, but there are a few who are a lot worse off.) It's also possible this exaggerates the issue because the denominator (GDP) fell by 5 or 6 points.
I did a little research and found there were bi-lateral arrangements set up after Portugal withdrew from these areas in 1975 which enabled the citizens of these countries to apply for Portuguese citizenship.
Once in Portugal and therefore inside the EU, they could travel within the Union (as it was) and could come to Britain for work, education etc.
I presume with the coming of the pandemic and the UK no longer being part of the EU, those who had come here have left - the cafe and food shops have closed.
I do not know if a similar arrangement existed for Spain's former African colonies - there was a Spanish Morocco until the late 50s but that has reduced to just Ceuta and Melilla. In addition, there have been documented reports of African refugees seeking to reach the Canary Islands - a number unfortunately have been lost in the dangerous waters (it's roughly 60 miles from the Moroccan coast).
And here's the total sum of household debt - https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-kingdom/household-debt
It shows a pretty big jump during the pandemic, so it's clearly not all denominator related.
*The woman who sells me the the best samosas in the city speaks Italian and Punjabi.
Turns out that knowledge of Bayesian statistics really spoils the experience of watching some of the “Final Destination” movies for Halloween.
https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1454863013928861707
Not sure how Sir Andy SNP type managed to wangle one given his political views.
Mortgage debt will be a severely laggy indicator of increasing house prices over decades - and is not particularly indicative of a problem, in the same way as a rise in credit card debt or personal loans might be.
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1454741804054630400
A note to say I will no longer be using
@politico
as a mainstream news source in future unless it’s reporting is corroborated by a 2nd source.
The @alexwickham scandal involving doubling down on fake translation of the French Brexit/fishing issue is not respectable journalism.
Yes, the K is interesting. You'd have thought that having got it for genuine graft rather than etherea would mean it's an asset. But it isn't and some of that is down to what you say - DPP has a stasi bloodless functionary vibe to it. Bright side though is that maybe older folk like it. More respect for authority, more on the side of cops over robbers. Maybe.
But the thing that really gets me is this "oiks prefer authentic toffs to upwardly mobile ex oiks". Hate that notion. I wouldn't if it didn't have some truth to it but I fear it does. In fact I know it does.
Sunil Prasannan, BSc. (Hons.), PhD, ARCS
I think that this is part of the reason that some PBers focus so much on proving that Starmer has benefited from privilege at school etc.
And that's nearly my last repeatable Ed Davey anecdote.
And he might like to reflect on if it’s only the French that can’t provide the data maybe it was only the French who were breaking the rules historically?
Apart from forming my world view somewhat.
Your average MP is a “honourable member”
A privy counsellor is a “right honourable member”
With SKS I don’t know if he would qualify as a “learned” (lawyer - but might be QC or judge not just DPP) or “gallant”… (I know it’s military but maybe a knight would count…)
[I know they’ve been dropped, but imagine calling LOTO the Right Honourable, Learned and Gallant member for Holborn and St Pancras)
- The kind who pretend to be toffs but actually went to the local comp. Invariably wankers in the 1st degree.
- The new Upper 10,000. "And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs".
The conclusions are (roughly) that the middle classes with stable incomes saw their savings rates increase, and they paid down debt. But that those on hourly wages and with lower incomes did not.
According to the piece, another contributor to the rising household debt number is people with mortgages choosing to defer payments.
I may be wrong about his background, but my understanding was that his background is fairly middling.