Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
Real Conservatives oust monarchs and royals.
Or is Stanley Baldwin another non Tory in your books?
Headline on my Guardian..... admittedly website ...... is the cost of living.. Andrew's second. And throughout history attractive young women have either been thrown at, or thrown themselves at, princes. Sometime's it's worked for them; more often, of course, it hasn't.
Good morning all; bit windy today, but dry.
Morning,
Wind building here. Had a bit of a leak in roof next to a flu yesterday, so not looking forward to more rain this evening.
Nasty; always difficult to find tradesmen in these sort of circumstances, too. Rushed off their feet. Best of luck
It's one of the rare circumstances where, if you're lucky enough to have a landlord who chose to pay for a competent letting agent, that you're better off in a private rental.
We had water come through the bathroom light fitting after a storm once and we didn't have to wait long for a roofer and an electrician to make everything good again, presumably because our letting agent has all sorts of maintenance contractors on retainer.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
I think she takes responsibility for it to an extent if her money means that he avoids being held to account for his actions.
That is the US system. This was never about holding hi to account. It was all about cash. As US lawyers keep claiming when interviewed about this, 95% of cases end in an out of court settlement. It is a ridiculous system which encourages law suits whatever the rights and wrongs of the case because it is not about justice, it is all about money.
And the Queen was screwed whichever way this went. If Andrew doesn't have the funds then he ends up facing a trial which damages the Royal Family even if the claims are utterly groundless (which I suspect they are not of course). If she provides the funds then Republican idiots like TSE use it as another stick to poke the monarchy.
What do the republican non-idiots do?
Not sure which class of republican I come under, but I see this as more evidence (were it needed) of the limitations of a hereditary monarchy. We were only one accident away from Andrew being next King until Charles had children (Anne was down the order, presumably, as a woman until the recent changes).
Of course, the alternatives have their problems - e.g. elected president as you might get a complete numpty for that too. But with limited terms the damage can be limited and in a largely ceremonial role you perhaps avoid the power hungry. The Irish model, in my opinion, works quite well.
Excellent post.
Enormous respect is due to the Queen for all her indefatigable service to this nation and the Commonwealth but I suspect after she dies some reappraisals will occur.
1. More advances were made under Victoria than Elizabeth II
2. She has presided over some terrible mistakes. Charles was obviously never suited for Diana and never loved her. He did love Camilla. He was also of a very different character to his father. The repercussions of the disaster surrounding Diana are still being felt and whilst it's easy to lay into Harry I suspect there's some truth behind his gripes.
3. Then there's Andrew ...
4. ... And a host of other entitled ludicrous hangers-on who should be told to get out and live in the real world with real jobs.
5. They have a ridiculous number of homes. It's a dreadful example to set in today's world.
6. The honours system is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished. All knighthoods removed.
7. We need an elected second chamber
And with that constitutional broadside I bid you g'day. Up the Revolution!
At least under Eliz II we stopped being a colonial power. Much reduced, anyway. Wasn't the Diana debacle in part due to Lord Mountbatten? Will we ever know?
If there were to be a General Election in the United Kingdom tomorrow, how likely would you be to vote? (R&W)
Certain to vote:
Scotland 69% Wales 67% North West 64% Yorkshire & Humber 60% Eastern 60% South East 58% South West 56% West Midlands 50% North East 46% East Midlands 42% London 32%
Those are huge differences. Never seen polling data like this before.
I concur. And I’m struggling to think of an explanation. Beyond the obvious.
The obvious doesn't really explain London, though. Apart from London, there's a decent correlation with (for example) the figures for Boris v Sunak.
A truly dark day for cricket and this country, further proof The Hundred is a disaster.
The centuries' old tradition which pits Eton against Harrow and Oxford against Cambridge at the iconic Lords Cricket Ground each summer will be scrapped from next year, it has been announced.
Eton v Harrow first began in 1805 - when Lord Byron played, despite his club foot - and is the longest-running regular fixture at the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), while the first Oxbridge Varsity took place in 1827.
But after almost 200 years, the MCC wants to widen the number of people who get to play on the hallowed turf, reports the Times, opting to stage more finals of competitions at all levels, as well as finding space for shortened versions of the game, such as The Hundred and Middlesex's Twenty20 fixtures.
"The commodity boom is adding an extra $10bn a month to Kremlin coffers from oil and gas. It is being squirrelled away in the National Wellbeing Fund."
Sounds about right. We should not overestimate the likely effects of sanctions on Russia, whose economy is a Conservative's wet dream: low debt; high reserves; even a commitment to levelling up.
You can also add rampant corruption, social conservatism, abiding love of flegs and an enduring obsession with WW2/GPW. The whole country is practically a toryworld theme park.
Mr. JohnL, if Russia is such a Conservative fantasy why was it the leader of Labour who was marching alongside hammer and sickle banners and portraits of Lenin and Stalin?
The monarchy is an absurdity and has pressed self-destruct with a string of appalling scandals.
The Queen has done a lot for this country but much must change after she dies. There have clearly been some terrible mistakes (e.g. Diana, Camilla, Andrew). A drastically pared down monarchy might help them survive but, really, the whole institution is quite ridiculous. As is the honours system.
Paring down the monarchy does not de facto mean a presidency. Let alone one with that clown at the helm. Still, if the snide remark made you feel better ...
Abolishing the monarchy means a presidency, or the equivalent - certainly it means an elected Head of State (that is to say, a politician). Now, that can either be the same person on the American model, or it can mean electing a whole new politician.
If it takes snide remarks to make republicans see the downside of abolishing the monarchy, so be it.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
I think she takes responsibility for it to an extent if her money means that he avoids being held to account for his actions.
That is the US system. This was never about holding hi to account. It was all about cash. As US lawyers keep claiming when interviewed about this, 95% of cases end in an out of court settlement. It is a ridiculous system which encourages law suits whatever the rights and wrongs of the case because it is not about justice, it is all about money.
And the Queen was screwed whichever way this went. If Andrew doesn't have the funds then he ends up facing a trial which damages the Royal Family even if the claims are utterly groundless (which I suspect they are not of course). If she provides the funds then Republican idiots like TSE use it as another stick to poke the monarchy.
What do the republican non-idiots do?
Not sure which class of republican I come under, but I see this as more evidence (were it needed) of the limitations of a hereditary monarchy. We were only one accident away from Andrew being next King until Charles had children (Anne was down the order, presumably, as a woman until the recent changes).
Of course, the alternatives have their problems - e.g. elected president as you might get a complete numpty for that too. But with limited terms the damage can be limited and in a largely ceremonial role you perhaps avoid the power hungry. The Irish model, in my opinion, works quite well.
Excellent post.
Enormous respect is due to the Queen for all her indefatigable service to this nation and the Commonwealth but I suspect after she dies some reappraisals will occur.
1. More advances were made under Victoria than Elizabeth II
2. She has presided over some terrible mistakes. Charles was obviously never suited for Diana and never loved her. He did love Camilla. He was also of a very different character to his father. The repercussions of the disaster surrounding Diana are still being felt and whilst it's easy to lay into Harry I suspect there's some truth behind his gripes.
3. Then there's Andrew ...
4. ... And a host of other entitled ludicrous hangers-on who should be told to get out and live in the real world with real jobs.
5. They have a ridiculous number of homes. It's a dreadful example to set in today's world.
6. The honours system is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished. All knighthoods removed.
7. We need an elected second chamber
And with that constitutional broadside I bid you g'day. Up the Revolution!
No, 2 was genius. Do you really think the heirs of Charles and Camilla would be more popular than William is or Harry was?
Charles has said he will restrictions the working royals to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Edward and Anne. He will also Buckingham Palace all year round to the public and just have an office and flat there while Balmoral will be open to the public too as a memorial to the Queen.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
I think she takes responsibility for it to an extent if her money means that he avoids being held to account for his actions.
That is the US system. This was never about holding hi to account. It was all about cash. As US lawyers keep claiming when interviewed about this, 95% of cases end in an out of court settlement. It is a ridiculous system which encourages law suits whatever the rights and wrongs of the case because it is not about justice, it is all about money.
And the Queen was screwed whichever way this went. If Andrew doesn't have the funds then he ends up facing a trial which damages the Royal Family even if the claims are utterly groundless (which I suspect they are not of course). If she provides the funds then Republican idiots like TSE use it as another stick to poke the monarchy.
What do the republican non-idiots do?
Not sure which class of republican I come under, but I see this as more evidence (were it needed) of the limitations of a hereditary monarchy. We were only one accident away from Andrew being next King until Charles had children (Anne was down the order, presumably, as a woman until the recent changes).
Of course, the alternatives have their problems - e.g. elected president as you might get a complete numpty for that too. But with limited terms the damage can be limited and in a largely ceremonial role you perhaps avoid the power hungry. The Irish model, in my opinion, works quite well.
Excellent post.
Enormous respect is due to the Queen for all her indefatigable service to this nation and the Commonwealth but I suspect after she dies some reappraisals will occur.
1. More advances were made under Victoria than Elizabeth II
2. She has presided over some terrible mistakes. Charles was obviously never suited for Diana and never loved her. He did love Camilla. He was also of a very different character to his father. The repercussions of the disaster surrounding Diana are still being felt and whilst it's easy to lay into Harry I suspect there's some truth behind his gripes.
3. Then there's Andrew ...
4. ... And a host of other entitled ludicrous hangers-on who should be told to get out and live in the real world with real jobs.
5. They have a ridiculous number of homes. It's a dreadful example to set in today's world.
6. The honours system is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished. All knighthoods removed.
7. We need an elected second chamber
And with that constitutional broadside I bid you g'day. Up the Revolution!
At least under Eliz II we stopped being a colonial power. Much reduced, anyway. Wasn't the Diana debacle in part due to Lord Mountbatten? Will we ever know?
We stopped that in large part when we lost India under George VIth, our biggest colony. It was of course under George IIIrd we lost the American colonies
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
The whole point of a monarchy is elevating inheritance to a governing principle, so the Queen has every responsibility for her son, given that one of her other sons will follow her into the job.
No, as the Queen always knew Charles and William would be the heirs, so she invested most in training them.
Once Charles becomes King he will discard most of the Royal family except him, Camilla, the Cambridges and Prince Edward and Princess Anne.
Does Edward have a function? Other than not being Andrew?
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
Real Conservatives oust monarchs and royals.
Or is Stanley Baldwin another non Tory in your books?
Stanley Baldwin was no republican, he just replaced Edward VIIIth as monarch with his brother George VIth when he married a divorcee, which was not acceptable at the time but would be now.
You cannot be a real Tory without being a monarchist
Mr. JohnL, if Russia is such a Conservative fantasy why was it the leader of Labour who was marching alongside hammer and sickle banners and portraits of Lenin and Stalin?
It was originally a sword and hammer. The omnipotent genius of Father Lenin changed it to a sickle.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Yep this would be exactly my view as well. The country should be investing in the students studying the courses that will benefit us the most.
Ah, but here is the thing. If STEM subjects are so important, why does "the market" not take care of it by way of more jobs with higher salaries for STEM graduates. Aside from a few rocket scientists who go into the City to write spreadsheets for the English graduates in the City, where are the jobs in the British chemical industry, or life sciences, or physics and engineering? Too many companies have folded or been bought up and their R&D shifted to the United States.
On topic: glad to see the general level of disgust at rich man's "justice"
Off topic thanks to @pigeon for the piece on pay. This line stood out: "He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
An awful lot of people in an awful lot of jobs worked tirelessly and at some risk through the pandemic and their reward appears to be getting screwed over and sneered at. NHS staff less likely to be Tory voters but plenty in all of the other key worker jobs who kept essential services going.
Their reward for their vote in 2019 and then their graft is a whopping tax rise, front line NHS cuts and being sneeringly told by ministers that asking for a pay rise is out of order. As the champagne corks pop amongst Tory banking friends.
A deep sense of unfairness drove first the Brexit vote then the Tory win in 2019. That unfairness, once the target is reversed, will do egregious things to Tory chances in 2024.
Labour's Welsh NHS austerity.
Indeed! And like everything else the cash circulates from Westminster. So it doesn't matter that this Nurse is a bit trotty and lives in Wales, his "hang on I did all the work and now can't pay the bills how is that fair" question is exactly what we have been debating on here for a while.
Inflation plus tax cuts equal unhappy voters. Hard to deflect the blame away from the government though some of you will valiantly try.
The real risk for the government is if Johnson survives through the summer. His kind of boosterism will clash rather badly with people's lived realities, and his (and his ministerial team's) tendency to sneer and patronise anyone challenging the spin lie will just make it worse. It'll be "you've never had it so good" just as so many of their own voters are thinking the opposite.
Disagree.
Presenting an apple (partisan political activist) as an orange (everyday Joe) is either incompetent or dishonest journalism. Especially when this one is so visible.
If they want to maintain their poor reputation, that's how to do it.
Obviously the G is hypocrisy central - always has been in recent decades, and in the context of the banker stuff bubbling to the top again they understandably do not mention that their Chief Exec is on a package of around £750k a year.
A truly dark day for cricket and this country, further proof The Hundred is a disaster.
The centuries' old tradition which pits Eton against Harrow and Oxford against Cambridge at the iconic Lords Cricket Ground each summer will be scrapped from next year, it has been announced.
Eton v Harrow first began in 1805 - when Lord Byron played, despite his club foot - and is the longest-running regular fixture at the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), while the first Oxbridge Varsity took place in 1827.
But after almost 200 years, the MCC wants to widen the number of people who get to play on the hallowed turf, reports the Times, opting to stage more finals of competitions at all levels, as well as finding space for shortened versions of the game, such as The Hundred and Middlesex's Twenty20 fixtures.
The bit in bold, I am strongly in favour of. Back in the day, my school's under-15 (I think) team made the final of the Lord's Taverners Cup. Which was played at Trent Bridge, which was great - but it wasn't Lord's.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Absolutely agree, I'd extend it to law and history.
I'd extend it also to medical degrees on the proviso that they agree to work for the NHS for five years after they graduate.
The first 5 years is still training. The issue is that to get a proper return you need it to be 10-15 years.
And the fix to do that isn't to make a medical degree free but to have the loan repaid in chunks on completion of their 10th to 15th year in the NHS...
A truly dark day for cricket and this country, further proof The Hundred is a disaster.
The centuries' old tradition which pits Eton against Harrow and Oxford against Cambridge at the iconic Lords Cricket Ground each summer will be scrapped from next year, it has been announced.
Eton v Harrow first began in 1805 - when Lord Byron played, despite his club foot - and is the longest-running regular fixture at the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), while the first Oxbridge Varsity took place in 1827.
But after almost 200 years, the MCC wants to widen the number of people who get to play on the hallowed turf, reports the Times, opting to stage more finals of competitions at all levels, as well as finding space for shortened versions of the game, such as The Hundred and Middlesex's Twenty20 fixtures.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
I think she takes responsibility for it to an extent if her money means that he avoids being held to account for his actions.
That is the US system. This was never about holding hi to account. It was all about cash. As US lawyers keep claiming when interviewed about this, 95% of cases end in an out of court settlement. It is a ridiculous system which encourages law suits whatever the rights and wrongs of the case because it is not about justice, it is all about money.
And the Queen was screwed whichever way this went. If Andrew doesn't have the funds then he ends up facing a trial which damages the Royal Family even if the claims are utterly groundless (which I suspect they are not of course). If she provides the funds then Republican idiots like TSE use it as another stick to poke the monarchy.
What do the republican non-idiots do?
Not sure which class of republican I come under, but I see this as more evidence (were it needed) of the limitations of a hereditary monarchy. We were only one accident away from Andrew being next King until Charles had children (Anne was down the order, presumably, as a woman until the recent changes).
Of course, the alternatives have their problems - e.g. elected president as you might get a complete numpty for that too. But with limited terms the damage can be limited and in a largely ceremonial role you perhaps avoid the power hungry. The Irish model, in my opinion, works quite well.
Excellent post.
Enormous respect is due to the Queen for all her indefatigable service to this nation and the Commonwealth but I suspect after she dies some reappraisals will occur.
1. More advances were made under Victoria than Elizabeth II
2. She has presided over some terrible mistakes. Charles was obviously never suited for Diana and never loved her. He did love Camilla. He was also of a very different character to his father. The repercussions of the disaster surrounding Diana are still being felt and whilst it's easy to lay into Harry I suspect there's some truth behind his gripes.
3. Then there's Andrew ...
4. ... And a host of other entitled ludicrous hangers-on who should be told to get out and live in the real world with real jobs.
5. They have a ridiculous number of homes. It's a dreadful example to set in today's world.
6. The honours system is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished. All knighthoods removed.
7. We need an elected second chamber
And with that constitutional broadside I bid you g'day. Up the Revolution!
No, 2 was genius. Do you really think the heirs of Charles and Camilla would be more popular than William is or Harry was?
Charles has said he will restrictions the working royals to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Edward and Anne. He will also Buckingham Palace all year round to the public and just have an office and flat there while Balmoral will be open to the public too as a memorial to the Queen.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I thought TSE was supposed to be on holiday.
Does this mean that we are going to see some tortuous pieces that the authors did not wish to inflict on OGH to edit ?
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
Tovey, who uses his car to commute to work, has seen the cost of diesel rise sharply and is concerned that his pay packet will not keep up with the surge in gas and electricity bills due in April. “I’m quite fearful of how I’m going to manage,” he said.
He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
Having gone to university to become a nurse, Tovey says he probably earns more than other people but is still struggling. “It feels like if I’ve worked hard and gone into a profession to better myself, and I’m in this position, how the hell are other people coping?
“It impacts on your mental health, there’s nowhere to turn. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you wonder, when are we going to have a break?”
This week British bankers will start collecting the biggest bonuses since before the 2008 global financial crisis as their employers fight an “increasingly intense war for talent”.
As most Britons face the biggest squeeze on their incomes since at least 1990, already very highly paid bankers are celebrating “particularly obscene” bonuses in the City’s pubs and wine bars.
“We have had quite the run on champagne – the poshest champagne we stock,” says James, a bartender at the New Moon on the streets of Leadenhall Market near the headquarters of many of the City of London’s banks. “They come here to celebrate when they get told their ‘number’ – the numbers seem to have been particularly obscene this year.”
...
The bumper bonuses will tip several hundred more UK bankers into the EU’s “high earners” warning report which details every banker earning more than €1m (£835,000) a year. The European Banking Authority (EBA) found that 3,519 bankers working in the UK earned more than €1m-a-year last year – more than seven times as many as those working in Germany which has the second highest number of €1m-a-year bankers.
The EBA figures show 27 UK bankers earned more than €10m in 2019 (the latest year available). Two UK-based asset managers were paid between €38m and €39m, and one merchant banker was paid €64.8m. That banker received fixed pay of €242,000, topped up with a bonus of €64.6m.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
The Guardian appears to be unaware that Merthyr Tydfil is in Wales, that health is devolved, and that pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The joys of "lets keep people stupid" politics. The Tory tactics during austerity was cut nationally and pass the blame locally. The idea being that they gut the finances of Labour councils and then get voted in with the Labour councillors getting the blame. It worked - so many people had no clue how funding worked.
So here it isn't The Guardian that is ignorant of how things work, it is the *voter*. Exactly what the Tories wanted.
And indeed, some googling reveals Matthew Tovey hardly to be an ignorant average "voter".
My guess from Tovey's social media profile and the images of him with Jeremy Corbyn is he may not be entirely a political naif.
I am not sure that it would be the greatest strategy in the world for the Tories to claim there is not a serious cost of living crisis for millions of working people people across the UK.
I am not a Tory strategist.
My only point is that the Welsh NHS is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Yep and you're right. But pointing that out to angry voters in Wales won't do the Tories any favours. People have been worked hard by the media for a decade to not understand stuff, and unfortunately that is going to bite them on the arse hard.
What could also be a key issue in many rural / far flung / poorer areas is the axing of regional development monies. The EU cash has gone and the pledge to match it dropped. Many places will be viscerally and visibly poorer because of it, just at the time as the cost of living squeeze pinches hardest and the Tories try to parade Brexit benefits.
When the government itself demonstrates that it doesn't know how stuff works they can hardly complain that their voters are just as ignorant.
The EU cash was not spent to any great benefit of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil. There was EU cash in Wales, but the beneficiaries were people/institutions that knew how to work the system.
Where I do agree with you is that the increased cost of living will hurt the Government. In fact, my guess is that is why Johnson is still in place, to take some of the hit.
As regards Matthew Tovey, after rummaging around his extensive media profile, I rather like the guy -- but he is clearly on the "Starmer Out" wing of the Labour party
What he is not is an average, politically disengaged voter from Merthyr Tydfil, as the Guardian present him.
And the Guardian keep on making this mistake -- picking something wrong with the Welsh NHS and blaming the Tories. Time they learnt.
Does the Welsh Government have significant tax raising powers, like we do up here in Scotland?
I appreciate that borrowing is important, but while SC/WA are in Union with England all that really means is borrowing off the English given the tax/expenditure differential.
@RochdalePioneers is wrong to suggest that voters have been hoodwinked by devolution. If they are holding the SG etc to account, while they have tax powers, then it's working exactly as it should.
I was suggesting no such thing. Voters have been hoodwinked by a decade-long misinformation campaign by the Tories to pin all the blame on service provision onto localities regardless of where the money comes from.
The plan - and it has been a success - was to destroy local government finance through removal of the government grant then blame councils for the local destruction of services provided by councils using the government grant.
Now that voters have been educated to not understand the flow of money it is quite funny that this is now in reverse with the Westminster government blamed for things it doesn't control. They can't complain - they wanted voters who were ignorant of reality.
@RochdalePioneers,old chap. The SNP are doing exactly the same thing up here. Holyrood is implementing real-time cuts to local government, despite the block grant from Westminster going up. . All 32 councils complained, even SNP-led ones. Meanwhile money is spaffed away on free bicycles, baby-boxes etc. All govts do this TBF.
Sure! And when the anger finally hits the SNP government for things they haven't done they will have only themselves to blame. I do keep pointing out that I'm not an SNP fanboi (I'm a LD candidate for Aberdeenshire council so running * against* them).
My point was simply that people in devolved areas blaming Westminster for devolved policies is a quite funny outcome.
WEll quite and Aberdeenshire has been a particular example of SNP malign neglect. Good Luck!
I am a paper candidate in a ward a long way down our target list. It would be a beautiful place to go canvass if I had time...
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Yep this would be exactly my view as well. The country should be investing in the students studying the courses that will benefit us the most.
Ah, but here is the thing. If STEM subjects are so important, why does "the market" not take care of it by way of more jobs with higher salaries for STEM graduates. Aside from a few rocket scientists who go into the City to write spreadsheets for the English graduates in the City, where are the jobs in the British chemical industry, or life sciences, or physics and engineering? Too many companies have folded or been bought up and their R&D shifted to the United States.
There will be more jobs for STEM graduates in the City than English graduates.
Apart from a few city lawyers, economists and STEM graduates are far more common in the City than humanities graduates
A truly dark day for cricket and this country, further proof The Hundred is a disaster.
The centuries' old tradition which pits Eton against Harrow and Oxford against Cambridge at the iconic Lords Cricket Ground each summer will be scrapped from next year, it has been announced.
Eton v Harrow first began in 1805 - when Lord Byron played, despite his club foot - and is the longest-running regular fixture at the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), while the first Oxbridge Varsity took place in 1827.
But after almost 200 years, the MCC wants to widen the number of people who get to play on the hallowed turf, reports the Times, opting to stage more finals of competitions at all levels, as well as finding space for shortened versions of the game, such as The Hundred and Middlesex's Twenty20 fixtures.
The bit in bold, I am strongly in favour of. Back in the day, my school's under-15 (I think) team made the final of the Lord's Taverners Cup. Which was played at Trent Bridge, which was great - but it wasn't Lord's.
Mr. JohnL, if Russia is such a Conservative fantasy why was it the leader of Labour who was marching alongside hammer and sickle banners and portraits of Lenin and Stalin?
Use the quote button. It's not a communist plot.
Why does the Conservative PM have a Russian name? That's the real question. Why did the KGB try to recruit another recent Conservative PM who in any case went on to do Moscow's bidding, he would claim unwittingly, by separating Britain from Europe and almost breaking up the United Kingdom, while decimating Britain's armed forces?
On topic: glad to see the general level of disgust at rich man's "justice"
Off topic thanks to @pigeon for the piece on pay. This line stood out: "He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
An awful lot of people in an awful lot of jobs worked tirelessly and at some risk through the pandemic and their reward appears to be getting screwed over and sneered at. NHS staff less likely to be Tory voters but plenty in all of the other key worker jobs who kept essential services going.
Their reward for their vote in 2019 and then their graft is a whopping tax rise, front line NHS cuts and being sneeringly told by ministers that asking for a pay rise is out of order. As the champagne corks pop amongst Tory banking friends.
A deep sense of unfairness drove first the Brexit vote then the Tory win in 2019. That unfairness, once the target is reversed, will do egregious things to Tory chances in 2024.
Labour's Welsh NHS austerity.
Indeed! And like everything else the cash circulates from Westminster. So it doesn't matter that this Nurse is a bit trotty and lives in Wales, his "hang on I did all the work and now can't pay the bills how is that fair" question is exactly what we have been debating on here for a while.
Inflation plus tax cuts equal unhappy voters. Hard to deflect the blame away from the government though some of you will valiantly try.
The real risk for the government is if Johnson survives through the summer. His kind of boosterism will clash rather badly with people's lived realities, and his (and his ministerial team's) tendency to sneer and patronise anyone challenging the spin lie will just make it worse. It'll be "you've never had it so good" just as so many of their own voters are thinking the opposite.
Disagree.
Presenting an apple (partisan political activist) as an orange (everyday Joe) is either incompetent or dishonest journalism. Especially when this one is so visible.
If they want to maintain their poor reputation, that's how to do it.
Obviously the G is hypocrisy central - always has been in recent decades, and in the context of the banker stuff bubbling to the top again they understandably do not mention that their Chief Exec is on a package of around £750k a year.
But given the vital contribution the Guardian CEO makes in helping to stop our daily Press from being almost exclusively Right-wind or Far Right-wing..... the Mirror excepted, it's money well earned
And a side issue, is anyone else puzzled by HYUFD's persistent use of 'rd', when referring to the likes of George III or 'th' for George Vi. I've never seen that usage elsewhere.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
I think she takes responsibility for it to an extent if her money means that he avoids being held to account for his actions.
That is the US system. This was never about holding hi to account. It was all about cash. As US lawyers keep claiming when interviewed about this, 95% of cases end in an out of court settlement. It is a ridiculous system which encourages law suits whatever the rights and wrongs of the case because it is not about justice, it is all about money.
And the Queen was screwed whichever way this went. If Andrew doesn't have the funds then he ends up facing a trial which damages the Royal Family even if the claims are utterly groundless (which I suspect they are not of course). If she provides the funds then Republican idiots like TSE use it as another stick to poke the monarchy.
What do the republican non-idiots do?
Not sure which class of republican I come under, but I see this as more evidence (were it needed) of the limitations of a hereditary monarchy. We were only one accident away from Andrew being next King until Charles had children (Anne was down the order, presumably, as a woman until the recent changes).
Of course, the alternatives have their problems - e.g. elected president as you might get a complete numpty for that too. But with limited terms the damage can be limited and in a largely ceremonial role you perhaps avoid the power hungry. The Irish model, in my opinion, works quite well.
Excellent post.
Enormous respect is due to the Queen for all her indefatigable service to this nation and the Commonwealth but I suspect after she dies some reappraisals will occur.
1. More advances were made under Victoria than Elizabeth II
2. She has presided over some terrible mistakes. Charles was obviously never suited for Diana and never loved her. He did love Camilla. He was also of a very different character to his father. The repercussions of the disaster surrounding Diana are still being felt and whilst it's easy to lay into Harry I suspect there's some truth behind his gripes.
3. Then there's Andrew ...
4. ... And a host of other entitled ludicrous hangers-on who should be told to get out and live in the real world with real jobs.
5. They have a ridiculous number of homes. It's a dreadful example to set in today's world.
6. The honours system is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished. All knighthoods removed.
7. We need an elected second chamber
And with that constitutional broadside I bid you g'day. Up the Revolution!
No, 2 was genius. Do you really think the heirs of Charles and Camilla would be more popular than William is or Harry was?
Charles has said he will restrictions the working royals to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Edward and Anne. He will also Buckingham Palace all year round to the public and just have an office and flat there while Balmoral will be open to the public too as a memorial to the Queen.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I thought TSE was supposed to be on holiday.
Does this mean that we are going to see some tortuous pieces that the authors did not wish to inflict on OGH to edit ?
On topic: glad to see the general level of disgust at rich man's "justice"
Off topic thanks to @pigeon for the piece on pay. This line stood out: "He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
An awful lot of people in an awful lot of jobs worked tirelessly and at some risk through the pandemic and their reward appears to be getting screwed over and sneered at. NHS staff less likely to be Tory voters but plenty in all of the other key worker jobs who kept essential services going.
Their reward for their vote in 2019 and then their graft is a whopping tax rise, front line NHS cuts and being sneeringly told by ministers that asking for a pay rise is out of order. As the champagne corks pop amongst Tory banking friends.
A deep sense of unfairness drove first the Brexit vote then the Tory win in 2019. That unfairness, once the target is reversed, will do egregious things to Tory chances in 2024.
Labour's Welsh NHS austerity.
Indeed! And like everything else the cash circulates from Westminster. So it doesn't matter that this Nurse is a bit trotty and lives in Wales, his "hang on I did all the work and now can't pay the bills how is that fair" question is exactly what we have been debating on here for a while.
Inflation plus tax cuts equal unhappy voters. Hard to deflect the blame away from the government though some of you will valiantly try.
The real risk for the government is if Johnson survives through the summer. His kind of boosterism will clash rather badly with people's lived realities, and his (and his ministerial team's) tendency to sneer and patronise anyone challenging the spin lie will just make it worse. It'll be "you've never had it so good" just as so many of their own voters are thinking the opposite.
Disagree.
Presenting an apple (partisan political activist) as an orange (everyday Joe) is either incompetent or dishonest journalism. Especially when this one is so visible.
If they want to maintain their poor reputation, that's how to do it.
Obviously the G is hypocrisy central - always has been in recent decades, and in the context of the banker stuff bubbling to the top again they understandably do not mention that their Chief Exec is on a package of around £750k a year.
But given the vital contribution the Guardian CEO makes in helping to stop our daily Press from being almost exclusively Right-wind or Far Right-wing..... the Mirror excepted, it's money well earned
And a side issue, is anyone else puzzled by HYUFD's persistent use of 'rd', when referring to the likes of George III or 'th' for George Vi. I've never seen that usage elsewhere.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Yep this would be exactly my view as well. The country should be investing in the students studying the courses that will benefit us the most.
Ah, but here is the thing. If STEM subjects are so important, why does "the market" not take care of it by way of more jobs with higher salaries for STEM graduates. Aside from a few rocket scientists who go into the City to write spreadsheets for the English graduates in the City, where are the jobs in the British chemical industry, or life sciences, or physics and engineering? Too many companies have folded or been bought up and their R&D shifted to the United States.
The majority of the engineering graduates I know, work for Rolls Royce, Airbus, one of the F1 teams or some other motorsport discipline.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
Tovey, who uses his car to commute to work, has seen the cost of diesel rise sharply and is concerned that his pay packet will not keep up with the surge in gas and electricity bills due in April. “I’m quite fearful of how I’m going to manage,” he said.
He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
Having gone to university to become a nurse, Tovey says he probably earns more than other people but is still struggling. “It feels like if I’ve worked hard and gone into a profession to better myself, and I’m in this position, how the hell are other people coping?
“It impacts on your mental health, there’s nowhere to turn. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you wonder, when are we going to have a break?”
This week British bankers will start collecting the biggest bonuses since before the 2008 global financial crisis as their employers fight an “increasingly intense war for talent”.
As most Britons face the biggest squeeze on their incomes since at least 1990, already very highly paid bankers are celebrating “particularly obscene” bonuses in the City’s pubs and wine bars.
“We have had quite the run on champagne – the poshest champagne we stock,” says James, a bartender at the New Moon on the streets of Leadenhall Market near the headquarters of many of the City of London’s banks. “They come here to celebrate when they get told their ‘number’ – the numbers seem to have been particularly obscene this year.”
...
The bumper bonuses will tip several hundred more UK bankers into the EU’s “high earners” warning report which details every banker earning more than €1m (£835,000) a year. The European Banking Authority (EBA) found that 3,519 bankers working in the UK earned more than €1m-a-year last year – more than seven times as many as those working in Germany which has the second highest number of €1m-a-year bankers.
The EBA figures show 27 UK bankers earned more than €10m in 2019 (the latest year available). Two UK-based asset managers were paid between €38m and €39m, and one merchant banker was paid €64.8m. That banker received fixed pay of €242,000, topped up with a bonus of €64.6m.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
The Guardian appears to be unaware that Merthyr Tydfil is in Wales, that health is devolved, and that pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The joys of "lets keep people stupid" politics. The Tory tactics during austerity was cut nationally and pass the blame locally. The idea being that they gut the finances of Labour councils and then get voted in with the Labour councillors getting the blame. It worked - so many people had no clue how funding worked.
So here it isn't The Guardian that is ignorant of how things work, it is the *voter*. Exactly what the Tories wanted.
And indeed, some googling reveals Matthew Tovey hardly to be an ignorant average "voter".
My guess from Tovey's social media profile and the images of him with Jeremy Corbyn is he may not be entirely a political naif.
I am not sure that it would be the greatest strategy in the world for the Tories to claim there is not a serious cost of living crisis for millions of working people people across the UK.
I am not a Tory strategist.
My only point is that the Welsh NHS is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Yep and you're right. But pointing that out to angry voters in Wales won't do the Tories any favours. People have been worked hard by the media for a decade to not understand stuff, and unfortunately that is going to bite them on the arse hard.
What could also be a key issue in many rural / far flung / poorer areas is the axing of regional development monies. The EU cash has gone and the pledge to match it dropped. Many places will be viscerally and visibly poorer because of it, just at the time as the cost of living squeeze pinches hardest and the Tories try to parade Brexit benefits.
When the government itself demonstrates that it doesn't know how stuff works they can hardly complain that their voters are just as ignorant.
The EU cash was not spent to any great benefit of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil. There was EU cash in Wales, but the beneficiaries were people/institutions that knew how to work the system.
Where I do agree with you is that the increased cost of living will hurt the Government. In fact, my guess is that is why Johnson is still in place, to take some of the hit.
As regards Matthew Tovey, after rummaging around his extensive media profile, I rather like the guy -- but he is clearly on the "Starmer Out" wing of the Labour party
What he is not is an average, politically disengaged voter from Merthyr Tydfil, as the Guardian present him.
And the Guardian keep on making this mistake -- picking something wrong with the Welsh NHS and blaming the Tories. Time they learnt.
Does the Welsh Government have significant tax raising powers, like we do up here in Scotland?
I appreciate that borrowing is important, but while SC/WA are in Union with England all that really means is borrowing off the English given the tax/expenditure differential.
@RochdalePioneers is wrong to suggest that voters have been hoodwinked by devolution. If they are holding the SG etc to account, while they have tax powers, then it's working exactly as it should.
I was suggesting no such thing. Voters have been hoodwinked by a decade-long misinformation campaign by the Tories to pin all the blame on service provision onto localities regardless of where the money comes from.
The plan - and it has been a success - was to destroy local government finance through removal of the government grant then blame councils for the local destruction of services provided by councils using the government grant.
Now that voters have been educated to not understand the flow of money it is quite funny that this is now in reverse with the Westminster government blamed for things it doesn't control. They can't complain - they wanted voters who were ignorant of reality.
@RochdalePioneers,old chap. The SNP are doing exactly the same thing up here. Holyrood is implementing real-time cuts to local government, despite the block grant from Westminster going up. . All 32 councils complained, even SNP-led ones. Meanwhile money is spaffed away on free bicycles, baby-boxes etc. All govts do this TBF.
Sure! And when the anger finally hits the SNP government for things they haven't done they will have only themselves to blame. I do keep pointing out that I'm not an SNP fanboi (I'm a LD candidate for Aberdeenshire council so running * against* them).
My point was simply that people in devolved areas blaming Westminster for devolved policies is a quite funny outcome.
WEll quite and Aberdeenshire has been a particular example of SNP malign neglect. Good Luck!
I am a paper candidate in a ward a long way down our target list. It would be a beautiful place to go canvass if I had time...
Aren’t all Scottish local elections conducted by STV, so presumably a multi-member ward in which the LibDems could win one seat? So if your real name is Aardvark, I’d be slightly concerned, but less so if it’s Zebra.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
She may not be responsible for him being an alleged "sex pest" but she bears considerable responsibility for the way he is said to have treated staff.
I think her tone-deaf backing of her favourite has not done her any favours when his obnoxious, self-entitled nature is in plain sight. We can argue about the extent but there is little doubt that this episode has damaged the Monarchy and not just Andrew
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Absolutely agree, I'd extend it to law and history.
I'd extend it also to medical degrees on the proviso that they agree to work for the NHS for five years after they graduate.
The first 5 years is still training. The issue is that to get a proper return you need it to be 10-15 years.
And the fix to do that isn't to make a medical degree free but to have the loan repaid in chunks on completion of their 10th to 15th year in the NHS...
Recently qualified doctors leaving the NHS is not the real problem. Sure, some go to Australia for a couple of years but then Australians and others come here. No, the long-term problem is doctors choosing to work part-time (including most GPs) rather than put in a full shift.
The short-term issue is that Covid broke the medical training pathway so that as older consultants retire, the junior doctors who would normally replace them have not been able to gain the necessary experience because elective medicine was shut down for the duration of the pandemic.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
She may not be responsible for him being an alleged "sex pest" but she bears considerable responsibility for the way he is said to have treated staff.
I think her tone-deaf backing of her favourite has not done her any favours when his obnoxious, self-entitled nature is in plain sight. We can argue about the extent but there is little doubt that this episode has damaged the Monarchy and not just Andrew
Re your second para, anyone know what he was like when he was a naval officer? Entitled sod or one of the lads?
Those headlines are completely irrelevant as far as I can see. The massive question is what happened to that bloody photograph, upon which all this hinged - what was it, who had it, and why did it go missing?
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
I think she takes responsibility for it to an extent if her money means that he avoids being held to account for his actions.
That is the US system. This was never about holding hi to account. It was all about cash. As US lawyers keep claiming when interviewed about this, 95% of cases end in an out of court settlement. It is a ridiculous system which encourages law suits whatever the rights and wrongs of the case because it is not about justice, it is all about money.
And the Queen was screwed whichever way this went. If Andrew doesn't have the funds then he ends up facing a trial which damages the Royal Family even if the claims are utterly groundless (which I suspect they are not of course). If she provides the funds then Republican idiots like TSE use it as another stick to poke the monarchy.
What do the republican non-idiots do?
Not sure which class of republican I come under, but I see this as more evidence (were it needed) of the limitations of a hereditary monarchy. We were only one accident away from Andrew being next King until Charles had children (Anne was down the order, presumably, as a woman until the recent changes).
Of course, the alternatives have their problems - e.g. elected president as you might get a complete numpty for that too. But with limited terms the damage can be limited and in a largely ceremonial role you perhaps avoid the power hungry. The Irish model, in my opinion, works quite well.
Excellent post.
Enormous respect is due to the Queen for all her indefatigable service to this nation and the Commonwealth but I suspect after she dies some reappraisals will occur.
1. More advances were made under Victoria than Elizabeth II
2. She has presided over some terrible mistakes. Charles was obviously never suited for Diana and never loved her. He did love Camilla. He was also of a very different character to his father. The repercussions of the disaster surrounding Diana are still being felt and whilst it's easy to lay into Harry I suspect there's some truth behind his gripes.
3. Then there's Andrew ...
4. ... And a host of other entitled ludicrous hangers-on who should be told to get out and live in the real world with real jobs.
5. They have a ridiculous number of homes. It's a dreadful example to set in today's world.
6. The honours system is absolutely ridiculous and should be abolished. All knighthoods removed.
7. We need an elected second chamber
And with that constitutional broadside I bid you g'day. Up the Revolution!
No, 2 was genius. Do you really think the heirs of Charles and Camilla would be more popular than William is or Harry was?
Charles has said he will restrictions the working royals to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Edward and Anne. He will also Buckingham Palace all year round to the public and just have an office and flat there while Balmoral will be open to the public too as a memorial to the Queen.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
That call on 'working Royals' needs to be more carefully defined. That feels too narrow, bearing in mind that there are 4 (now 3) in Charles' generation, and only 1 in the next now that Harry has walked away.
Does he actually mean 'paid Royals' or 'Royals who represent the country'?
Get it wrong and a lot of activities which benefit from Royal connections could be hurt. eg Zara Tindall has picked up Princess Anne's tradition of support for welfare and disability charities.
I wonder if HMQ will leave Balmoral to someone else.
Perhaps Charles sees the Castle of Mey setup as a model?
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Yep this would be exactly my view as well. The country should be investing in the students studying the courses that will benefit us the most.
Ah, but here is the thing. If STEM subjects are so important, why does "the market" not take care of it by way of more jobs with higher salaries for STEM graduates. Aside from a few rocket scientists who go into the City to write spreadsheets for the English graduates in the City, where are the jobs in the British chemical industry, or life sciences, or physics and engineering? Too many companies have folded or been bought up and their R&D shifted to the United States.
The majority of the engineering graduates I know, work for Rolls Royce, Airbus, one of the F1 teams or some other motorsport discipline.
Job done! If engineering graduates (and not just your mates) are getting highly-paid jobs in Formula 1 and aerospace, then the government will not need to place its thumb on the scales.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Absolutely agree, I'd extend it to law and history.
I'd extend it also to medical degrees on the proviso that they agree to work for the NHS for five years after they graduate.
The first 5 years is still training. The issue is that to get a proper return you need it to be 10-15 years.
And the fix to do that isn't to make a medical degree free but to have the loan repaid in chunks on completion of their 10th to 15th year in the NHS...
Recently qualified doctors leaving the NHS is not the real problem. Sure, some go to Australia for a couple of years but then Australians and others come here. No, the long-term problem is doctors choosing to work part-time (including most GPs) rather than put in a full shift.
The short-term issue is that Covid broke the medical training pathway so that as older consultants retire, the junior doctors who would normally replace them have not been able to gain the necessary experience because elective medicine was shut down for the duration of the pandemic.
Some at least part-time medics are young women who want to combine careers with child-care. If there are enough of them I don't see that as a problem.
On topic: glad to see the general level of disgust at rich man's "justice"
Off topic thanks to @pigeon for the piece on pay. This line stood out: "He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
An awful lot of people in an awful lot of jobs worked tirelessly and at some risk through the pandemic and their reward appears to be getting screwed over and sneered at. NHS staff less likely to be Tory voters but plenty in all of the other key worker jobs who kept essential services going.
Their reward for their vote in 2019 and then their graft is a whopping tax rise, front line NHS cuts and being sneeringly told by ministers that asking for a pay rise is out of order. As the champagne corks pop amongst Tory banking friends.
A deep sense of unfairness drove first the Brexit vote then the Tory win in 2019. That unfairness, once the target is reversed, will do egregious things to Tory chances in 2024.
Labour's Welsh NHS austerity.
Indeed! And like everything else the cash circulates from Westminster. So it doesn't matter that this Nurse is a bit trotty and lives in Wales, his "hang on I did all the work and now can't pay the bills how is that fair" question is exactly what we have been debating on here for a while.
Inflation plus tax cuts equal unhappy voters. Hard to deflect the blame away from the government though some of you will valiantly try.
The real risk for the government is if Johnson survives through the summer. His kind of boosterism will clash rather badly with people's lived realities, and his (and his ministerial team's) tendency to sneer and patronise anyone challenging the spin lie will just make it worse. It'll be "you've never had it so good" just as so many of their own voters are thinking the opposite.
Disagree.
Presenting an apple (partisan political activist) as an orange (everyday Joe) is either incompetent or dishonest journalism. Especially when this one is so visible.
If they want to maintain their poor reputation, that's how to do it.
Obviously the G is hypocrisy central - always has been in recent decades, and in the context of the banker stuff bubbling to the top again they understandably do not mention that their Chief Exec is on a package of around £750k a year.
Funnier is when the Guardian start banging on about trusts and tax havens as being evil and run by Lucifer himself - while failing to mention that their own esteemed organ is ultimately controlled by a trust.
The reason Guido started collating instances of such bias-by-omission, is that he noted that his colleagues and guests from think tanks like TPA and IEA, were always announced as “Right-wing” or “Free-market”; whereas those opposing him, generally from left-wing think tanks or unions, were never introduced with such riders.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Absolutely agree, I'd extend it to law and history.
I'd extend it also to medical degrees on the proviso that they agree to work for the NHS for five years after they graduate.
The first 5 years is still training. The issue is that to get a proper return you need it to be 10-15 years.
And the fix to do that isn't to make a medical degree free but to have the loan repaid in chunks on completion of their 10th to 15th year in the NHS...
Recently qualified doctors leaving the NHS is not the real problem. Sure, some go to Australia for a couple of years but then Australians and others come here. No, the long-term problem is doctors choosing to work part-time (including most GPs) rather than put in a full shift.
The short-term issue is that Covid broke the medical training pathway so that as older consultants retire, the junior doctors who would normally replace them have not been able to gain the necessary experience because elective medicine was shut down for the duration of the pandemic.
An even bigger problem is the deliberate policy of training less doctors, nurses and medical technical people per year than the NHS is projected to require. And not by a small amount, either.
A question for someone to ask - what provision has been made for the fact that in a few years time, a bumper crop of medical undergraduates are going to emerge from the sausage machine? That is, due to the COVID exam stuff, some courses will produce 130% of the "normal" number of grads. What will be done with them?
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
Tovey, who uses his car to commute to work, has seen the cost of diesel rise sharply and is concerned that his pay packet will not keep up with the surge in gas and electricity bills due in April. “I’m quite fearful of how I’m going to manage,” he said.
He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
Having gone to university to become a nurse, Tovey says he probably earns more than other people but is still struggling. “It feels like if I’ve worked hard and gone into a profession to better myself, and I’m in this position, how the hell are other people coping?
“It impacts on your mental health, there’s nowhere to turn. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you wonder, when are we going to have a break?”
This week British bankers will start collecting the biggest bonuses since before the 2008 global financial crisis as their employers fight an “increasingly intense war for talent”.
As most Britons face the biggest squeeze on their incomes since at least 1990, already very highly paid bankers are celebrating “particularly obscene” bonuses in the City’s pubs and wine bars.
“We have had quite the run on champagne – the poshest champagne we stock,” says James, a bartender at the New Moon on the streets of Leadenhall Market near the headquarters of many of the City of London’s banks. “They come here to celebrate when they get told their ‘number’ – the numbers seem to have been particularly obscene this year.”
...
The bumper bonuses will tip several hundred more UK bankers into the EU’s “high earners” warning report which details every banker earning more than €1m (£835,000) a year. The European Banking Authority (EBA) found that 3,519 bankers working in the UK earned more than €1m-a-year last year – more than seven times as many as those working in Germany which has the second highest number of €1m-a-year bankers.
The EBA figures show 27 UK bankers earned more than €10m in 2019 (the latest year available). Two UK-based asset managers were paid between €38m and €39m, and one merchant banker was paid €64.8m. That banker received fixed pay of €242,000, topped up with a bonus of €64.6m.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
The Guardian appears to be unaware that Merthyr Tydfil is in Wales, that health is devolved, and that pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The joys of "lets keep people stupid" politics. The Tory tactics during austerity was cut nationally and pass the blame locally. The idea being that they gut the finances of Labour councils and then get voted in with the Labour councillors getting the blame. It worked - so many people had no clue how funding worked.
So here it isn't The Guardian that is ignorant of how things work, it is the *voter*. Exactly what the Tories wanted.
And indeed, some googling reveals Matthew Tovey hardly to be an ignorant average "voter".
My guess from Tovey's social media profile and the images of him with Jeremy Corbyn is he may not be entirely a political naif.
I am not sure that it would be the greatest strategy in the world for the Tories to claim there is not a serious cost of living crisis for millions of working people people across the UK.
I am not a Tory strategist.
My only point is that the Welsh NHS is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Yep and you're right. But pointing that out to angry voters in Wales won't do the Tories any favours. People have been worked hard by the media for a decade to not understand stuff, and unfortunately that is going to bite them on the arse hard.
What could also be a key issue in many rural / far flung / poorer areas is the axing of regional development monies. The EU cash has gone and the pledge to match it dropped. Many places will be viscerally and visibly poorer because of it, just at the time as the cost of living squeeze pinches hardest and the Tories try to parade Brexit benefits.
When the government itself demonstrates that it doesn't know how stuff works they can hardly complain that their voters are just as ignorant.
The EU cash was not spent to any great benefit of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil. There was EU cash in Wales, but the beneficiaries were people/institutions that knew how to work the system.
Where I do agree with you is that the increased cost of living will hurt the Government. In fact, my guess is that is why Johnson is still in place, to take some of the hit.
As regards Matthew Tovey, after rummaging around his extensive media profile, I rather like the guy -- but he is clearly on the "Starmer Out" wing of the Labour party
What he is not is an average, politically disengaged voter from Merthyr Tydfil, as the Guardian present him.
And the Guardian keep on making this mistake -- picking something wrong with the Welsh NHS and blaming the Tories. Time they learnt.
Does the Welsh Government have significant tax raising powers, like we do up here in Scotland?
I appreciate that borrowing is important, but while SC/WA are in Union with England all that really means is borrowing off the English given the tax/expenditure differential.
@RochdalePioneers is wrong to suggest that voters have been hoodwinked by devolution. If they are holding the SG etc to account, while they have tax powers, then it's working exactly as it should.
I was suggesting no such thing. Voters have been hoodwinked by a decade-long misinformation campaign by the Tories to pin all the blame on service provision onto localities regardless of where the money comes from.
The plan - and it has been a success - was to destroy local government finance through removal of the government grant then blame councils for the local destruction of services provided by councils using the government grant.
Now that voters have been educated to not understand the flow of money it is quite funny that this is now in reverse with the Westminster government blamed for things it doesn't control. They can't complain - they wanted voters who were ignorant of reality.
@RochdalePioneers,old chap. The SNP are doing exactly the same thing up here. Holyrood is implementing real-time cuts to local government, despite the block grant from Westminster going up. . All 32 councils complained, even SNP-led ones. Meanwhile money is spaffed away on free bicycles, baby-boxes etc. All govts do this TBF.
Sure! And when the anger finally hits the SNP government for things they haven't done they will have only themselves to blame. I do keep pointing out that I'm not an SNP fanboi (I'm a LD candidate for Aberdeenshire council so running * against* them).
My point was simply that people in devolved areas blaming Westminster for devolved policies is a quite funny outcome.
WEll quite and Aberdeenshire has been a particular example of SNP malign neglect. Good Luck!
I am a paper candidate in a ward a long way down our target list. It would be a beautiful place to go canvass if I had time...
Aberdeenshire will be pretty hard-fought I should think, given that every parliamentary seat there is an SNP/Con marginal. Tories under-nominated last time in some wards, which I imagine they'll put right this time. Then again, they'll have Boris acting as an anchor. Any sense of how things might go?
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Yep this would be exactly my view as well. The country should be investing in the students studying the courses that will benefit us the most.
Ah, but here is the thing. If STEM subjects are so important, why does "the market" not take care of it by way of more jobs with higher salaries for STEM graduates. Aside from a few rocket scientists who go into the City to write spreadsheets for the English graduates in the City, where are the jobs in the British chemical industry, or life sciences, or physics and engineering? Too many companies have folded or been bought up and their R&D shifted to the United States.
The majority of the engineering graduates I know, work for Rolls Royce, Airbus, one of the F1 teams or some other motorsport discipline.
Job done! If engineering graduates (and not just your mates) are getting highly-paid jobs in Formula 1 and aerospace, then the government will not need to place its thumb on the scales.
There are also loads of other engineering and design companies, IT, architecture, contruction and academia where STEM graduates can end up too, although there will be a few that leak to the City for the big bucks, particularly mathematicians.
A truly dark day for cricket and this country, further proof The Hundred is a disaster.
The centuries' old tradition which pits Eton against Harrow and Oxford against Cambridge at the iconic Lords Cricket Ground each summer will be scrapped from next year, it has been announced.
Eton v Harrow first began in 1805 - when Lord Byron played, despite his club foot - and is the longest-running regular fixture at the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), while the first Oxbridge Varsity took place in 1827.
But after almost 200 years, the MCC wants to widen the number of people who get to play on the hallowed turf, reports the Times, opting to stage more finals of competitions at all levels, as well as finding space for shortened versions of the game, such as The Hundred and Middlesex's Twenty20 fixtures.
Agree entirely, it is only one match and one of the oldest in the cricketing calendar.
Also a great shame for future generations of Old Etonian and Old Harrovian cricketers who will no longer be able to play at Lords
Julian Wilson, the BBC's racing correspondent in the days when the BBC covered sport, wrote that he would take his many romantic conquests to watch the Eton-Harrow cricket match at Lords, and it seems to have worked.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
Is there any point tinkering with Parliament at all, now we're so close to being able to abolish it and govern by social media?
On topic: glad to see the general level of disgust at rich man's "justice"
Off topic thanks to @pigeon for the piece on pay. This line stood out: "He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
An awful lot of people in an awful lot of jobs worked tirelessly and at some risk through the pandemic and their reward appears to be getting screwed over and sneered at. NHS staff less likely to be Tory voters but plenty in all of the other key worker jobs who kept essential services going.
Their reward for their vote in 2019 and then their graft is a whopping tax rise, front line NHS cuts and being sneeringly told by ministers that asking for a pay rise is out of order. As the champagne corks pop amongst Tory banking friends.
A deep sense of unfairness drove first the Brexit vote then the Tory win in 2019. That unfairness, once the target is reversed, will do egregious things to Tory chances in 2024.
Labour's Welsh NHS austerity.
Indeed! And like everything else the cash circulates from Westminster. So it doesn't matter that this Nurse is a bit trotty and lives in Wales, his "hang on I did all the work and now can't pay the bills how is that fair" question is exactly what we have been debating on here for a while.
Inflation plus tax cuts equal unhappy voters. Hard to deflect the blame away from the government though some of you will valiantly try.
The real risk for the government is if Johnson survives through the summer. His kind of boosterism will clash rather badly with people's lived realities, and his (and his ministerial team's) tendency to sneer and patronise anyone challenging the spin lie will just make it worse. It'll be "you've never had it so good" just as so many of their own voters are thinking the opposite.
Disagree.
Presenting an apple (partisan political activist) as an orange (everyday Joe) is either incompetent or dishonest journalism. Especially when this one is so visible.
If they want to maintain their poor reputation, that's how to do it.
Obviously the G is hypocrisy central - always has been in recent decades, and in the context of the banker stuff bubbling to the top again they understandably do not mention that their Chief Exec is on a package of around £750k a year.
Funnier is when the Guardian start banging on about trusts and tax havens as being evil and run by Lucifer himself - while failing to mention that their own esteemed organ is ultimately controlled by a trust.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
Tovey, who uses his car to commute to work, has seen the cost of diesel rise sharply and is concerned that his pay packet will not keep up with the surge in gas and electricity bills due in April. “I’m quite fearful of how I’m going to manage,” he said.
He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
Having gone to university to become a nurse, Tovey says he probably earns more than other people but is still struggling. “It feels like if I’ve worked hard and gone into a profession to better myself, and I’m in this position, how the hell are other people coping?
“It impacts on your mental health, there’s nowhere to turn. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you wonder, when are we going to have a break?”
This week British bankers will start collecting the biggest bonuses since before the 2008 global financial crisis as their employers fight an “increasingly intense war for talent”.
As most Britons face the biggest squeeze on their incomes since at least 1990, already very highly paid bankers are celebrating “particularly obscene” bonuses in the City’s pubs and wine bars.
“We have had quite the run on champagne – the poshest champagne we stock,” says James, a bartender at the New Moon on the streets of Leadenhall Market near the headquarters of many of the City of London’s banks. “They come here to celebrate when they get told their ‘number’ – the numbers seem to have been particularly obscene this year.”
...
The bumper bonuses will tip several hundred more UK bankers into the EU’s “high earners” warning report which details every banker earning more than €1m (£835,000) a year. The European Banking Authority (EBA) found that 3,519 bankers working in the UK earned more than €1m-a-year last year – more than seven times as many as those working in Germany which has the second highest number of €1m-a-year bankers.
The EBA figures show 27 UK bankers earned more than €10m in 2019 (the latest year available). Two UK-based asset managers were paid between €38m and €39m, and one merchant banker was paid €64.8m. That banker received fixed pay of €242,000, topped up with a bonus of €64.6m.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
The Guardian appears to be unaware that Merthyr Tydfil is in Wales, that health is devolved, and that pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The joys of "lets keep people stupid" politics. The Tory tactics during austerity was cut nationally and pass the blame locally. The idea being that they gut the finances of Labour councils and then get voted in with the Labour councillors getting the blame. It worked - so many people had no clue how funding worked.
So here it isn't The Guardian that is ignorant of how things work, it is the *voter*. Exactly what the Tories wanted.
And indeed, some googling reveals Matthew Tovey hardly to be an ignorant average "voter".
My guess from Tovey's social media profile and the images of him with Jeremy Corbyn is he may not be entirely a political naif.
I am not sure that it would be the greatest strategy in the world for the Tories to claim there is not a serious cost of living crisis for millions of working people people across the UK.
I am not a Tory strategist.
My only point is that the Welsh NHS is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Yep and you're right. But pointing that out to angry voters in Wales won't do the Tories any favours. People have been worked hard by the media for a decade to not understand stuff, and unfortunately that is going to bite them on the arse hard.
What could also be a key issue in many rural / far flung / poorer areas is the axing of regional development monies. The EU cash has gone and the pledge to match it dropped. Many places will be viscerally and visibly poorer because of it, just at the time as the cost of living squeeze pinches hardest and the Tories try to parade Brexit benefits.
When the government itself demonstrates that it doesn't know how stuff works they can hardly complain that their voters are just as ignorant.
The EU cash was not spent to any great benefit of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil. There was EU cash in Wales, but the beneficiaries were people/institutions that knew how to work the system.
Where I do agree with you is that the increased cost of living will hurt the Government. In fact, my guess is that is why Johnson is still in place, to take some of the hit.
As regards Matthew Tovey, after rummaging around his extensive media profile, I rather like the guy -- but he is clearly on the "Starmer Out" wing of the Labour party
What he is not is an average, politically disengaged voter from Merthyr Tydfil, as the Guardian present him.
And the Guardian keep on making this mistake -- picking something wrong with the Welsh NHS and blaming the Tories. Time they learnt.
Does the Welsh Government have significant tax raising powers, like we do up here in Scotland?
I appreciate that borrowing is important, but while SC/WA are in Union with England all that really means is borrowing off the English given the tax/expenditure differential.
@RochdalePioneers is wrong to suggest that voters have been hoodwinked by devolution. If they are holding the SG etc to account, while they have tax powers, then it's working exactly as it should.
I was suggesting no such thing. Voters have been hoodwinked by a decade-long misinformation campaign by the Tories to pin all the blame on service provision onto localities regardless of where the money comes from.
The plan - and it has been a success - was to destroy local government finance through removal of the government grant then blame councils for the local destruction of services provided by councils using the government grant.
Now that voters have been educated to not understand the flow of money it is quite funny that this is now in reverse with the Westminster government blamed for things it doesn't control. They can't complain - they wanted voters who were ignorant of reality.
@RochdalePioneers,old chap. The SNP are doing exactly the same thing up here. Holyrood is implementing real-time cuts to local government, despite the block grant from Westminster going up. . All 32 councils complained, even SNP-led ones. Meanwhile money is spaffed away on free bicycles, baby-boxes etc. All govts do this TBF.
Sure! And when the anger finally hits the SNP government for things they haven't done they will have only themselves to blame. I do keep pointing out that I'm not an SNP fanboi (I'm a LD candidate for Aberdeenshire council so running * against* them).
My point was simply that people in devolved areas blaming Westminster for devolved policies is a quite funny outcome.
WEll quite and Aberdeenshire has been a particular example of SNP malign neglect. Good Luck!
I am a paper candidate in a ward a long way down our target list. It would be a beautiful place to go canvass if I had time...
Aberdeenshire will be pretty hard-fought I should think, given that every parliamentary seat there is an SNP/Con marginal. Tories under-nominated last time in some wards, which I imagine they'll put right this time. Then again, they'll have Boris acting as an anchor. Any sense of how things might go?
I would have thought the Tories will remain the largest party in Aberdeenshire as they under nominated last time. They have also won every local by election bar one since 2017 (Ellon and District) which they lost by less than 1% on 1st preferences. I'm guessing the Lib Dems will get at least slightly squeezed.
Some changes (NI on pensions) are possible, but otherwise it seems to be largely a matter of luck as to how well or badly a generation does. Baby boomers got lucky. Young people today much less so.
There are two sorts of wealth, income and assets. The first is heavily taxed, the latter much more lightly if at all. This needs to be rebalanced.
How about optimising spending?
It is impossible for the government to spend less by increasing productivity.
This is why Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (a warm over version of the Space Shuttle Main Engines) will take 3 years to build 18 examples, for 100 million dollars each.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk is annoyed because Raptor 2 (a more complex engine) is costing around 1 million dollars per example and they are only coming of the production line at 1 per *day*
To be fair, managing to spend $100m turning a reusable engine into an expendable one, is bloody hard work!
A distance aquaintance who has some involvement as a government inspector told me of the following - a bunch of AR engineers had a discussion about tightening a bolt on a test build of the RS25.
Turns out the original documentation (1970s, typed) was a bit unclear on process, torque values etc. Finally, after a non-trivial number of hours on the subject, they stood around as an actual hands on guy fired up the air powered tool to tighten it. And strips the thread. Despite having a platoon assigned to the job, they had managed to miss the wrong value being set on the torque gun. And not testing it first on a test piece. The thread was integral to the part - so that part was now ruined.
But don't worry - they all got coffee and had a conference to discuss the problem.
Meanwhile in The Company That Can't Be Mentioned, they are eliminating joins by welding major assemblies together......
More pertinently, they all got paid at the end of the month, whether or not they had a serviceable RS-25 rocket motor on their test stand.
Meanwhile a private company, with individual shareholders ploughing in millions of dollars a day of their own money into the project, are managing to iterate their design the old fashioned way, with much better results.
Yes - one thing that has changed is that in the old days, blowing up test stands was seen as doing work. Engines went through dozens of versions before going anywhere near a launch vehicle.
Now people try and remove all risk with design and process. The dream that you can bolt a engine together and fire it up and it will be perfect.
Strangely, this doesn't work and costs orders of magnitude more than the original ways...
This is a common feature of government projects around the world - a perfect design must be created and implemented, first time, no matter what the cost. And it always fails.
Of course it does - it’s actual rocket science after all, and why even the smallest program involves dozens of engineers.
I think the change was with Apollo, where there was no room for error, the various assemblies were outsourced to different teams, and everything had to fit together and be man-rated from Day 1 - and even then, they managed to kill three astronauts early on in the program, which made them even more risk-averse in future.
The number of F-1 engines they blew up on the stand....
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
Tovey, who uses his car to commute to work, has seen the cost of diesel rise sharply and is concerned that his pay packet will not keep up with the surge in gas and electricity bills due in April. “I’m quite fearful of how I’m going to manage,” he said.
He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
Having gone to university to become a nurse, Tovey says he probably earns more than other people but is still struggling. “It feels like if I’ve worked hard and gone into a profession to better myself, and I’m in this position, how the hell are other people coping?
“It impacts on your mental health, there’s nowhere to turn. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you wonder, when are we going to have a break?”
This week British bankers will start collecting the biggest bonuses since before the 2008 global financial crisis as their employers fight an “increasingly intense war for talent”.
As most Britons face the biggest squeeze on their incomes since at least 1990, already very highly paid bankers are celebrating “particularly obscene” bonuses in the City’s pubs and wine bars.
“We have had quite the run on champagne – the poshest champagne we stock,” says James, a bartender at the New Moon on the streets of Leadenhall Market near the headquarters of many of the City of London’s banks. “They come here to celebrate when they get told their ‘number’ – the numbers seem to have been particularly obscene this year.”
...
The bumper bonuses will tip several hundred more UK bankers into the EU’s “high earners” warning report which details every banker earning more than €1m (£835,000) a year. The European Banking Authority (EBA) found that 3,519 bankers working in the UK earned more than €1m-a-year last year – more than seven times as many as those working in Germany which has the second highest number of €1m-a-year bankers.
The EBA figures show 27 UK bankers earned more than €10m in 2019 (the latest year available). Two UK-based asset managers were paid between €38m and €39m, and one merchant banker was paid €64.8m. That banker received fixed pay of €242,000, topped up with a bonus of €64.6m.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
The Guardian appears to be unaware that Merthyr Tydfil is in Wales, that health is devolved, and that pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The joys of "lets keep people stupid" politics. The Tory tactics during austerity was cut nationally and pass the blame locally. The idea being that they gut the finances of Labour councils and then get voted in with the Labour councillors getting the blame. It worked - so many people had no clue how funding worked.
So here it isn't The Guardian that is ignorant of how things work, it is the *voter*. Exactly what the Tories wanted.
And indeed, some googling reveals Matthew Tovey hardly to be an ignorant average "voter".
My guess from Tovey's social media profile and the images of him with Jeremy Corbyn is he may not be entirely a political naif.
I am not sure that it would be the greatest strategy in the world for the Tories to claim there is not a serious cost of living crisis for millions of working people people across the UK.
I am not a Tory strategist.
My only point is that the Welsh NHS is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Yep and you're right. But pointing that out to angry voters in Wales won't do the Tories any favours. People have been worked hard by the media for a decade to not understand stuff, and unfortunately that is going to bite them on the arse hard.
What could also be a key issue in many rural / far flung / poorer areas is the axing of regional development monies. The EU cash has gone and the pledge to match it dropped. Many places will be viscerally and visibly poorer because of it, just at the time as the cost of living squeeze pinches hardest and the Tories try to parade Brexit benefits.
When the government itself demonstrates that it doesn't know how stuff works they can hardly complain that their voters are just as ignorant.
The EU cash was not spent to any great benefit of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil. There was EU cash in Wales, but the beneficiaries were people/institutions that knew how to work the system.
Where I do agree with you is that the increased cost of living will hurt the Government. In fact, my guess is that is why Johnson is still in place, to take some of the hit.
As regards Matthew Tovey, after rummaging around his extensive media profile, I rather like the guy -- but he is clearly on the "Starmer Out" wing of the Labour party
What he is not is an average, politically disengaged voter from Merthyr Tydfil, as the Guardian present him.
And the Guardian keep on making this mistake -- picking something wrong with the Welsh NHS and blaming the Tories. Time they learnt.
Does the Welsh Government have significant tax raising powers, like we do up here in Scotland?
I appreciate that borrowing is important, but while SC/WA are in Union with England all that really means is borrowing off the English given the tax/expenditure differential.
@RochdalePioneers is wrong to suggest that voters have been hoodwinked by devolution. If they are holding the SG etc to account, while they have tax powers, then it's working exactly as it should.
I was suggesting no such thing. Voters have been hoodwinked by a decade-long misinformation campaign by the Tories to pin all the blame on service provision onto localities regardless of where the money comes from.
The plan - and it has been a success - was to destroy local government finance through removal of the government grant then blame councils for the local destruction of services provided by councils using the government grant.
Now that voters have been educated to not understand the flow of money it is quite funny that this is now in reverse with the Westminster government blamed for things it doesn't control. They can't complain - they wanted voters who were ignorant of reality.
@RochdalePioneers,old chap. The SNP are doing exactly the same thing up here. Holyrood is implementing real-time cuts to local government, despite the block grant from Westminster going up. . All 32 councils complained, even SNP-led ones. Meanwhile money is spaffed away on free bicycles, baby-boxes etc. All govts do this TBF.
Sure! And when the anger finally hits the SNP government for things they haven't done they will have only themselves to blame. I do keep pointing out that I'm not an SNP fanboi (I'm a LD candidate for Aberdeenshire council so running * against* them).
My point was simply that people in devolved areas blaming Westminster for devolved policies is a quite funny outcome.
WEll quite and Aberdeenshire has been a particular example of SNP malign neglect. Good Luck!
I am a paper candidate in a ward a long way down our target list. It would be a beautiful place to go canvass if I had time...
Good luck, RP. I am seriously thinking about standing for the LibDems in Pembrokeshire this year. Sadly we are FPTP so highly unlikely to win in my little town.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
End life membership should be a bare minimum. How do we currently get rid of these people from parliament?
They retire when 89 year old Betty Boothroyd tells them there are too many old people in the Lords. I think she's now nearly mature enough to be allowed to give people the finger in the Chamber.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
The main problem our legislature has is that the Commons is now largely a partisan rubber stamp, in thrall to the PM and his whips, while the Lords is entirely lacking in legitimacy, and is very distant from the concerns of the public.
We need a body that has the legitimacy to block legislation from the Commons, but without creating a partisan logjam (which would be the result of an elected second chamber).
The answer is a Grand Jury, drawn from the population at random, to consider legislation.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
She may not be responsible for him being an alleged "sex pest" but she bears considerable responsibility for the way he is said to have treated staff.
I think her tone-deaf backing of her favourite has not done her any favours when his obnoxious, self-entitled nature is in plain sight. We can argue about the extent but there is little doubt that this episode has damaged the Monarchy and not just Andrew
Re your second para, anyone know what he was like when he was a naval officer? Entitled sod or one of the lads?
A friend's brother served with him in the Navy and loathed him.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
I used to think that the 2nd Chamber had the checks and balances, to reign in any mavericks from the lower house. Unfortunately the present Johnson ignores checks and balances as they aren't written in rules or laws to be enforced by an independent body. "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". I fear we need a constitutional court rather than a 2nd chamber.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
The apprenticeship system has to be robust, maybe back to the old style of debentured apprenticeships, with day and block releases to university. There are some very good apprenticeship schemes that follow this trajectory. Apprenticeships are done properly in Germany.
As it stands at the moment, the "modern" QCF (NVQ as was) style apprenticeship schemes are often (not always) a box ticking observational exercise and funding is reliant on certification, so certificates are issued not on the basis of competence but on the basis of the provider being paid.
As someone who read Politics at University free of charge in the 1980s, the upshot of my three years served no direct function for the greater good of the nation, but it made me a well rounded and productive member of society nonetheless. Disregarding Higher Education has dangers too, it is all about working out how to pay for it, I suppose.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
Tovey, who uses his car to commute to work, has seen the cost of diesel rise sharply and is concerned that his pay packet will not keep up with the surge in gas and electricity bills due in April. “I’m quite fearful of how I’m going to manage,” he said.
He said it felt as if NHS staff had been ignored despite being on the frontline of the pandemic. “I worked through three waves, and they stood on their doorsteps and clapped, but they’re taking food away from our tables, really.”
Having gone to university to become a nurse, Tovey says he probably earns more than other people but is still struggling. “It feels like if I’ve worked hard and gone into a profession to better myself, and I’m in this position, how the hell are other people coping?
“It impacts on your mental health, there’s nowhere to turn. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place and you wonder, when are we going to have a break?”
This week British bankers will start collecting the biggest bonuses since before the 2008 global financial crisis as their employers fight an “increasingly intense war for talent”.
As most Britons face the biggest squeeze on their incomes since at least 1990, already very highly paid bankers are celebrating “particularly obscene” bonuses in the City’s pubs and wine bars.
“We have had quite the run on champagne – the poshest champagne we stock,” says James, a bartender at the New Moon on the streets of Leadenhall Market near the headquarters of many of the City of London’s banks. “They come here to celebrate when they get told their ‘number’ – the numbers seem to have been particularly obscene this year.”
...
The bumper bonuses will tip several hundred more UK bankers into the EU’s “high earners” warning report which details every banker earning more than €1m (£835,000) a year. The European Banking Authority (EBA) found that 3,519 bankers working in the UK earned more than €1m-a-year last year – more than seven times as many as those working in Germany which has the second highest number of €1m-a-year bankers.
The EBA figures show 27 UK bankers earned more than €10m in 2019 (the latest year available). Two UK-based asset managers were paid between €38m and €39m, and one merchant banker was paid €64.8m. That banker received fixed pay of €242,000, topped up with a bonus of €64.6m.
“It seems to me like I’m just working to be able to cover the bills,” said Matthew Tovey. The 30-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales, said his pay had not risen above inflation for a decade under the Conservatives’ austerity drive.
The Guardian appears to be unaware that Merthyr Tydfil is in Wales, that health is devolved, and that pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
The joys of "lets keep people stupid" politics. The Tory tactics during austerity was cut nationally and pass the blame locally. The idea being that they gut the finances of Labour councils and then get voted in with the Labour councillors getting the blame. It worked - so many people had no clue how funding worked.
So here it isn't The Guardian that is ignorant of how things work, it is the *voter*. Exactly what the Tories wanted.
And indeed, some googling reveals Matthew Tovey hardly to be an ignorant average "voter".
My guess from Tovey's social media profile and the images of him with Jeremy Corbyn is he may not be entirely a political naif.
I am not sure that it would be the greatest strategy in the world for the Tories to claim there is not a serious cost of living crisis for millions of working people people across the UK.
I am not a Tory strategist.
My only point is that the Welsh NHS is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Yep and you're right. But pointing that out to angry voters in Wales won't do the Tories any favours. People have been worked hard by the media for a decade to not understand stuff, and unfortunately that is going to bite them on the arse hard.
What could also be a key issue in many rural / far flung / poorer areas is the axing of regional development monies. The EU cash has gone and the pledge to match it dropped. Many places will be viscerally and visibly poorer because of it, just at the time as the cost of living squeeze pinches hardest and the Tories try to parade Brexit benefits.
When the government itself demonstrates that it doesn't know how stuff works they can hardly complain that their voters are just as ignorant.
The EU cash was not spent to any great benefit of the residents of Merthyr Tydfil. There was EU cash in Wales, but the beneficiaries were people/institutions that knew how to work the system.
Where I do agree with you is that the increased cost of living will hurt the Government. In fact, my guess is that is why Johnson is still in place, to take some of the hit.
As regards Matthew Tovey, after rummaging around his extensive media profile, I rather like the guy -- but he is clearly on the "Starmer Out" wing of the Labour party
What he is not is an average, politically disengaged voter from Merthyr Tydfil, as the Guardian present him.
And the Guardian keep on making this mistake -- picking something wrong with the Welsh NHS and blaming the Tories. Time they learnt.
Does the Welsh Government have significant tax raising powers, like we do up here in Scotland?
I appreciate that borrowing is important, but while SC/WA are in Union with England all that really means is borrowing off the English given the tax/expenditure differential.
@RochdalePioneers is wrong to suggest that voters have been hoodwinked by devolution. If they are holding the SG etc to account, while they have tax powers, then it's working exactly as it should.
I was suggesting no such thing. Voters have been hoodwinked by a decade-long misinformation campaign by the Tories to pin all the blame on service provision onto localities regardless of where the money comes from.
The plan - and it has been a success - was to destroy local government finance through removal of the government grant then blame councils for the local destruction of services provided by councils using the government grant.
Now that voters have been educated to not understand the flow of money it is quite funny that this is now in reverse with the Westminster government blamed for things it doesn't control. They can't complain - they wanted voters who were ignorant of reality.
@RochdalePioneers,old chap. The SNP are doing exactly the same thing up here. Holyrood is implementing real-time cuts to local government, despite the block grant from Westminster going up. . All 32 councils complained, even SNP-led ones. Meanwhile money is spaffed away on free bicycles, baby-boxes etc. All govts do this TBF.
Sure! And when the anger finally hits the SNP government for things they haven't done they will have only themselves to blame. I do keep pointing out that I'm not an SNP fanboi (I'm a LD candidate for Aberdeenshire council so running * against* them).
My point was simply that people in devolved areas blaming Westminster for devolved policies is a quite funny outcome.
WEll quite and Aberdeenshire has been a particular example of SNP malign neglect. Good Luck!
I am a paper candidate in a ward a long way down our target list. It would be a beautiful place to go canvass if I had time...
Aberdeenshire will be pretty hard-fought I should think, given that every parliamentary seat there is an SNP/Con marginal. Tories under-nominated last time in some wards, which I imagine they'll put right this time. Then again, they'll have Boris acting as an anchor. Any sense of how things might go?
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Yep this would be exactly my view as well. The country should be investing in the students studying the courses that will benefit us the most.
Ah, but here is the thing. If STEM subjects are so important, why does "the market" not take care of it by way of more jobs with higher salaries for STEM graduates. Aside from a few rocket scientists who go into the City to write spreadsheets for the English graduates in the City, where are the jobs in the British chemical industry, or life sciences, or physics and engineering? Too many companies have folded or been bought up and their R&D shifted to the United States.
The majority of the engineering graduates I know, work for Rolls Royce, Airbus, one of the F1 teams or some other motorsport discipline.
Job done! If engineering graduates (and not just your mates) are getting highly-paid jobs in Formula 1 and aerospace, then the government will not need to place its thumb on the scales.
There are also loads of other engineering and design companies, IT, architecture, contruction and academia where STEM graduates can end up too, although there will be a few that leak to the City for the big bucks, particularly mathematicians.
If so, and this is the point, there should be no need for the government to further subsidise stem graduates because the market is already showering them with cash, which will presumably incentivise students more than a grand off their tuition fees.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
The main problem our legislature has is that the Commons is now largely a partisan rubber stamp, in thrall to the PM and his whips, while the Lords is entirely lacking in legitimacy, and is very distant from the concerns of the public.
We need a body that has the legitimacy to block legislation from the Commons, but without creating a partisan logjam (which would be the result of an elected second chamber).
The answer is a Grand Jury, drawn from the population at random, to consider legislation.
I'm sure it is, but for politicians to approve it would be professional suicide.
On topic, surely the best news about Andrew's settlement is that endless posts about him and his family will gradually disappear from this otherwise splendid forum? I live in hope - maybe give it a couple of days. I've instructed Meghan and Harry not to say or do anything of interest.
Storm Eunice looks really serious on Friday. Rapid cyclogenesis = weather bomb. Gusts of 100 mph are possible.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an Amber warning issued today and Red warning tomorrow. That means don't travel.
Looks like we're sheltered from both here in Aberdeenshire
You'll have to wait until Sunday for something a bit blowier (likely 'Franklin'), although you will no doubt get some snow in the mean time.
Friday does look very rough in England. At least having people working from home is easier now...
Until the power is out.
Lol, true. Still, better being at home than being under a flipped lorry or a fallen tree. 47 people died in the Burns' Day Storm (1990) so these things aren't always trivial.
I had an email about Friday from the grid company yesterday - they haven't sent out messages for any other storms over the years, so either they have learnt from Arwen or they have been given advance notice of a likely red warning. The track is still a bit uncertain - it could be south coast only, or it could be a swath through England and particularly W Wales.
Yesterday was a great day for the victims of (child) sexual abuse and the republican movement in this country.
So Brenda is going to help pay the £12 million settlement, an utter disgrace.
The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is setting a marvellous example.
Yet more rubbish from the republican, Liberal Democrat voting non Tory.
What the Queen does with her private funds is her own affair. It also had no impact on the monarchy, indeed former US Presidents Clinton and Trump associated with Epstein, Andrew is only 9th in the line of succession now.
The Queen has set a marvellous example her entire life and is not responsible for the actions of her son
She may not be responsible for him being an alleged "sex pest" but she bears considerable responsibility for the way he is said to have treated staff.
I think her tone-deaf backing of her favourite has not done her any favours when his obnoxious, self-entitled nature is in plain sight. We can argue about the extent but there is little doubt that this episode has damaged the Monarchy and not just Andrew
Re your second para, anyone know what he was like when he was a naval officer? Entitled sod or one of the lads?
I never met him but by reputation... aggressively average SK pilot and a total fanny rat. One of the lads.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
The apprenticeship system has to be robust, maybe back to the old style of debentured apprenticeships, with day and block releases to university. There are some very good apprenticeship schemes that follow this trajectory. Apprenticeships are done properly in Germany.
As it stands at the moment, the "modern" QCF (NVQ as was) style apprenticeship schemes are often (not always) a box ticking observational exercise and funding is reliant on certification, so certificates are issued not on the basis of competence but on the basis of the provider being paid.
As someone who read Politics at University free of charge in the 1980s, the upshot of my three years served no direct function for the greater good of the nation, but it made me a well rounded and productive member of society nonetheless. Disregarding Higher Education has dangers too, it is all about working out how to pay for it, I suppose.
Back when I was thin-sandwich sponsored through University by my future employer, they also had the local Poly teach a 12 week co-designed course tailored to their particular requirements and product (a telephone exchange known as the iSDX) at technician level.
I see no reason why something like that should not be fundable via the Apprenticeship Levy.
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
Yep this would be exactly my view as well. The country should be investing in the students studying the courses that will benefit us the most.
Ah, but here is the thing. If STEM subjects are so important, why does "the market" not take care of it by way of more jobs with higher salaries for STEM graduates. Aside from a few rocket scientists who go into the City to write spreadsheets for the English graduates in the City, where are the jobs in the British chemical industry, or life sciences, or physics and engineering? Too many companies have folded or been bought up and their R&D shifted to the United States.
The majority of the engineering graduates I know, work for Rolls Royce, Airbus, one of the F1 teams or some other motorsport discipline.
Job done! If engineering graduates (and not just your mates) are getting highly-paid jobs in Formula 1 and aerospace, then the government will not need to place its thumb on the scales.
There are also loads of other engineering and design companies, IT, architecture, contruction and academia where STEM graduates can end up too, although there will be a few that leak to the City for the big bucks, particularly mathematicians.
If so, and this is the point, there should be no need for the government to further subsidise stem graduates because the market is already showering them with cash, which will presumably incentivise students more than a grand off their tuition fees.
The issue with STEM courses is a lack of places, because the current funding model doesn’t cover the true costs of the course.
Government either needs to subsidise more STEM places, or get out of the management of undergraduate courses and let the market set prices and place numbers.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
On the fourth point, would that mean abolishing "ping pong"?
The only reason I can see for having an elected upper chamber is if it's elected on a different basis to the lower chamber. The USA manages this by having one elected by districts and the other by states (although there's no difefrence on the smaller states) but I can't see that would work here unless you leave the Commons as is and elect the upper chamber proportionally on some basis or other.
On topic, surely the best news about Andrew's settlement is that endless posts about him and his family will gradually disappear from this otherwise splendid forum? I live in hope - maybe give it a couple of days. I've instructed Meghan and Harry not to say or do anything of interest.
had me until "'I've instructed Meghan and Harry not to say or do anything of interest"
That they won't try and get back on the front pages is less believable than aliens pulling 150G manoeuvres to show off.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
On the fourth point, would that mean abolishing "ping pong"?
The only reason I can see for having an elected upper chamber is if it's elected on a different basis to the lower chamber. The USA manages this by having one elected by districts and the other by states (although there's no difefrence on the smaller states) but I can't see that would work here unless you leave the Commons as is and elect the upper chamber proportionally on some basis or other.
The whole point of a second chamber is that it has more time to reflect on bills and go through them in detail in ways that isn't possible in the House of Commons.
How you populate that second chamber is secondary to the need for it to ensure bills don't have stupid gaps / flaws within them.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
I used to think that the 2nd Chamber had the checks and balances, to reign in any mavericks from the lower house. Unfortunately the present Johnson ignores checks and balances as they aren't written in rules or laws to be enforced by an independent body. "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". I fear we need a constitutional court rather than a 2nd chamber.
Has the Protest and other bits Bill had its guts reinserted?
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
What have the Methodists done wrong? Or the Kirk and the Wee Free's?
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
What have the Methodists done wrong? Or the Kirk and the Wee Free's?
Wee Free's are guilty of excessive inclusivity and flexibility in their mindset.
The whole point of a second chamber is that it has more time to reflect on bills and go through them in detail in ways that isn't possible in the House of Commons.
How you populate that second chamber is secondary to the need for it to ensure bills don't have stupid gaps / flaws within them.
Agreed, but the population is important so that they have the experience and expertise. To take controversial examples, having someone who has only just got a UK passport after claiming asylum and having people on different strands of Universal Credit and a former prisoner would give interesting insights into areas of the system which are obscure to most Lords and MPs.
The Commons often nods stuff through unless a major party makes an issue of it or an individual MP happens to be passionate about it, usually as a personal interest rather than because hundreds of constituents have raised it. There is simpkly too much legislation to have an informed view about all of it - it's not that MPs are wickedly conspiring to pass rubbish laws, but that they don't always notice the flaws. If the reformed Lords pointed out issues with new legislation more systematically, on the basis of experience of some Lords, that would give many more pointers to MPs on issues that they might raise.
The whole point of a second chamber is that it has more time to reflect on bills and go through them in detail in ways that isn't possible in the House of Commons.
How you populate that second chamber is secondary to the need for it to ensure bills don't have stupid gaps / flaws within them.
Agreed, but the population is important so that they have the experience and expertise. To take controversial examples, having someone who has only just got a UK passport after claiming asylum and having people on different strands of Universal Credit and a former prisoner would give interesting insights into areas of the system which are obscure to most Lords and MPs.
The Commons often nods stuff through unless a major party makes an issue of it or an individual MP happens to be passionate about it, usually as a personal interest rather than because hundreds of constituents have raised it. There is simpkly too much legislation to have an informed view about all of it - it's not that MPs are wickedly conspiring to pass rubbish laws, but that they don't always notice the flaws. If the reformed Lords pointed out issues with new legislation more systematically, on the basis of experience of some Lords, that would give many more pointers to MPs on issues that they might raise.
I think the only way to achieve that is @LostPassword's idea of sortition. About 1 in 6 households in the UK are on universal credit, so selecting (say) 100 people at random from the UC claimant register to form part of a 600 seat upper chamber every year/parliament has a certain appeal.
The other option is to go back to first principles. How did we end up with a House of Lords and a House of Commons? I believe this was so that there was a forum for the concerns of different groups in society to be discussed. There was a recognition that the Lords could not be represented by the Commons and the Commons could not be represented by the Lords.
Today we operate on an implicit assumption that we all have common interests which can be represented equally with a single vote apiece by representation in the Commons. Is this the case? Perhaps we should explicitly create different chambers, with different franchises, to represent different interest groups.
An honest approach might be to have a House of Big Business - 100 members appointed by the boards of the FTSE100 companies. It would save them the trouble of having to buy peerages.
A House of the Young could balance a House of the Old.
It might be better for some of the political disputes we have given institutional form, so that the necessary debates can happen more openly.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
On the fourth point, would that mean abolishing "ping pong"?
The only reason I can see for having an elected upper chamber is if it's elected on a different basis to the lower chamber. The USA manages this by having one elected by districts and the other by states (although there's no difefrence on the smaller states) but I can't see that would work here unless you leave the Commons as is and elect the upper chamber proportionally on some basis or other.
Yes, ping pong would die under my approach - it's an irritating substitute for genuine scrutiny.
I agree that an alternative system would make an elected second chamber more interesting, but it's hard to find a method that doesn't result in a different mandate and endless argument about which one really represents the democratic will, as we see in the US with Congress often divided. Electing by regions, as some have suggested, will tend to introduce a bias to underpopulated areas (as the Senate does - 2 Senators each for New York and North Dakota). Electing by PR would effectively mean that the FPTP Commons could no longer get legislation through easily (depending how much blocking power you give the Lords) without cross-party deals. That might be a good thing, but if we think it's actually better than FPTP (as I do) then reforming the Commons is a more straightforward idea.
On the whole, I think it's better to have the two chambers having different functions - the Commons for democratic representation, the Lords for expert scrutiny.
The problem is that this is an existential issue for the GLP. Its whole point is that it can sue anyone it chooses over any error of public law. But that has now been rejected by the court. Crucially it raises money on the basis it can sue over any error.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
The main problem our legislature has is that the Commons is now largely a partisan rubber stamp, in thrall to the PM and his whips, while the Lords is entirely lacking in legitimacy, and is very distant from the concerns of the public.
We need a body that has the legitimacy to block legislation from the Commons, but without creating a partisan logjam (which would be the result of an elected second chamber).
The answer is a Grand Jury, drawn from the population at random, to consider legislation.
The Grand Jury idea is similar to the Green Party concept of ctizens' assemblies - get 100 people together to discuss an issue and brief them really well so they understand the issue in depth. I see the attraction but it scares me as sometimes the 100 will by random selection be weighted to people who happen to have one or another obsession, in the same way that an opinion poll with a sample of 100 often throws up really weird results.
But the integral committee idea is good - I agree that my hypothetical asylum-seeker or ex-prisoner doesn't really need to be a voting member. Select Committees do try to invite a variety of opinions, but they tend to be establishment types, including the more serious NGOs. For example, a hearing on slaughterhouse conditions might well invite me, as an expert on animal welfare, but they'd be very unlikely to invite a slaughterhouse worker or even have any idea how to look for one.
End life membership should be a bare minimum. How do we currently get rid of these people from parliament?
Agreed. They sometimes stand down voluntarily, but more usually carry on, just attending less frequently. A friend who gave evidence to a Lords Select Committee said the experience was weird, because some of the Committee were national experts who knew as much or more about her subject than she did, while others seemed to have early-stage dementia and rambled incosequentially. 10-year stints seem to me about right.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
Why are hereditary peers any more rooted in the heritage of the nation than anyone else? What a ridiculously elitist notion. My ancestors maybe didn't kiss the arse of the King to obtain a title but I would bet they did more to contribute to this country through honest hard work and sacrifice than some lazy parasitic nobleman ensconced in his castle. As did yours, in all likelihood. When is this country going to move on from this absurd hat-doffing?
My proposal for higher education is to scrap tuition fees but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university and instead get more people into work via apprenticeships or other routes.
I would prioritise STEM subjects for free tuition along with nursing
" ... but also massively reduce the numbers of students going to university ..."
I'm in some sympathy .... but you surely realise a Labour Govt cannot & will not do this.
Because it will mean some serious redundancies in the Universities and it will mean some Universities going bankrupt.
Which party controls almost all the University seats?
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
On the fourth point, would that mean abolishing "ping pong"?
The only reason I can see for having an elected upper chamber is if it's elected on a different basis to the lower chamber. The USA manages this by having one elected by districts and the other by states (although there's no difefrence on the smaller states) but I can't see that would work here unless you leave the Commons as is and elect the upper chamber proportionally on some basis or other.
Yes, ping pong would die under my approach - it's an irritating substitute for genuine scrutiny.
I agree that an alternative system would make an elected second chamber more interesting, but it's hard to find a method that doesn't result in a different mandate and endless argument about which one really represents the democratic will, as we see in the US with Congress often divided. Electing by regions, as some have suggested, will tend to introduce a bias to underpopulated areas (as the Senate does - 2 Senators each for New York and North Dakota). Electing by PR would effectively mean that the FPTP Commons could no longer get legislation through easily (depending how much blocking power you give the Lords) without cross-party deals. That might be a good thing, but if we think it's actually better than FPTP (as I do) then reforming the Commons is a more straightforward idea.
On the whole, I think it's better to have the two chambers having different functions - the Commons for democratic representation, the Lords for expert scrutiny.
I see the 2 Senators per State as a check on railroading of rural communities and imposition of agendas by larger States.
Much like the EUs Qualified Majority Voting, and votes weighted to smaller countries.
The devil is in the detail of the system. Which is perhaps an advantage for evolutionary change as happens in the UK, as opposed to "sweep it all away and impose what the current lot like".
Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready for Russia cutting off gas supplies and is 'now on the safe side for this winter'. She adds: 'One of the main lessons we have already learnt is we must diversify our energy sources and we must get rid of the dependency of Russian gas.'
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
Why are hereditary peers any more rooted in the heritage of the nation than anyone else? What a ridiculously elitist notion. My ancestors maybe didn't kiss the arse of the King to obtain a title but I would bet they did more to contribute to this country through honest hard work and sacrifice than some lazy parasitic nobleman ensconced in his castle. As did yours, in all likelihood. When is this country going to move on from this absurd hat-doffing?
Peers family's have been responsible for preserving large areas of the country over centuries, and developing other parts of it.
Consider various Great Estates, or the more historic parts of London.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
I'd fine with an appointed revising chamber, if they:
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
I don't have a problem with a few hereditary peers staying, they are rooted in the heritage of the nation and of course until the 20th century most members of the House of Lords were hereditary peers and bishops. As long as the Church of England is the establised church then the main bishops should also have a place in the Lords too, though I would add a few more Rabbis and Imams and senior figures in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches too. The Vatican won't allow Roman Catholic Bishops to join the Lords as it would conflict with their loyalty to Rome and the Pope unfortunately.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
What have the Methodists done wrong? Or the Kirk and the Wee Free's?
The second chamber should be reserved for experts in useful subjects. That would necessarily exclude bishops, priests, rabbis, imams, sufis, yogis and door-to-door Mormons. Have I forgotten anyone? Don't all shout at once.
Comments
Or is Stanley Baldwin another non Tory in your books?
We had water come through the bathroom light fitting after a storm once and we didn't have to wait long for a roofer and an electrician to make everything good again, presumably because our letting agent has all sorts of maintenance contractors on retainer.
Wasn't the Diana debacle in part due to Lord Mountbatten? Will we ever know?
Apart from London, there's a decent correlation with (for example) the figures for Boris v Sunak.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2022/02/k-harvey-proctor-the-real-case-against-starmers-term-as-dpp-how-operation-midland-cost-me-my-job-my-family-life-my-home-and-my-reputation.html
If we are going to have a go at Starmer’s leadership of the CPS, look at who he did pursue as much as who he didn’t.
The centuries' old tradition which pits Eton against Harrow and Oxford against Cambridge at the iconic Lords Cricket Ground each summer will be scrapped from next year, it has been announced.
Eton v Harrow first began in 1805 - when Lord Byron played, despite his club foot - and is the longest-running regular fixture at the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), while the first Oxbridge Varsity took place in 1827.
But after almost 200 years, the MCC wants to widen the number of people who get to play on the hallowed turf, reports the Times, opting to stage more finals of competitions at all levels, as well as finding space for shortened versions of the game, such as The Hundred and Middlesex's Twenty20 fixtures.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eton-and-harrow-old-boys-are-stumped-by-lords-8nzsmm7l2
I believe he prosecuted six Labour MPs and no Tory MPs, the Corbynites are right, Starmer is a Tory melt.
If it takes snide remarks to make republicans see the downside of abolishing the monarchy, so be it.
Charles has said he will restrictions the working royals to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Edward and Anne. He will also Buckingham Palace all year round to the public and just have an office and flat there while Balmoral will be open to the public too as a memorial to the Queen.
6. Knighthood are rewards for achievement and service. An elected second chamber would lose the expertise of appointed Lords who have achieved in business, the arts, the law, sports etc as well as politics. It would also try and delay legislation by the Commons more and for longer rather than just being a chamber of scrutiny and revision
You cannot be a real Tory without being a monarchist
Presenting an apple (partisan political activist) as an orange (everyday Joe) is either incompetent or dishonest journalism. Especially when this one is so visible.
If they want to maintain their poor reputation, that's how to do it.
Obviously the G is hypocrisy central - always has been in recent decades, and in the context of the banker stuff bubbling to the top again they understandably do not mention that their Chief Exec is on a package of around £750k a year.
And the fix to do that isn't to make a medical degree free but to have the loan repaid in chunks on completion of their 10th to 15th year in the NHS...
Also a great shame for future generations of Old Etonian and Old Harrovian cricketers who will no longer be able to play at Lords
Does this mean that we are going to see some tortuous pieces that the authors did not wish to inflict on OGH to edit ?
Apart from a few city lawyers, economists and STEM graduates are far more common in the City than humanities graduates
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/2454222/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-2022-royal-london-cup
Trent Bridge will host the Royal London Cup final which returns to a Saturday this year, on 17 September.
There will be 18 days between the semi-finals and final to allow fans more time to secure their tickets and book hotels.
At least it's marginally better than last season, but very late in the year.
Why does the Conservative PM have a Russian name? That's the real question. Why did the KGB try to recruit another recent Conservative PM who in any case went on to do Moscow's bidding, he would claim unwittingly, by separating Britain from Europe and almost breaking up the United Kingdom, while decimating Britain's armed forces?
And a side issue, is anyone else puzzled by HYUFD's persistent use of 'rd', when referring to the likes of George III or 'th' for George Vi.
I've never seen that usage elsewhere.
I think her tone-deaf backing of her favourite has not done her any favours when his obnoxious, self-entitled nature is in plain sight. We can argue about the extent but there is little doubt that this episode has damaged the Monarchy and not just Andrew
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/
The short-term issue is that Covid broke the medical training pathway so that as older consultants retire, the junior doctors who would normally replace them have not been able to gain the necessary experience because elective medicine was shut down for the duration of the pandemic.
Entitled sod or one of the lads?
Does he actually mean 'paid Royals' or 'Royals who represent the country'?
Get it wrong and a lot of activities which benefit from Royal connections could be hurt. eg Zara Tindall has picked up Princess Anne's tradition of support for welfare and disability charities.
I wonder if HMQ will leave Balmoral to someone else.
Perhaps Charles sees the Castle of Mey setup as a model?
The reason Guido started collating instances of such bias-by-omission, is that he noted that his colleagues and guests from think tanks like TPA and IEA, were always announced as “Right-wing” or “Free-market”; whereas those opposing him, generally from left-wing think tanks or unions, were never introduced with such riders.
A question for someone to ask - what provision has been made for the fact that in a few years time, a bumper crop of medical undergraduates are going to emerge from the sausage machine? That is, due to the COVID exam stuff, some courses will produce 130% of the "normal" number of grads. What will be done with them?
* Scrapped the remaining hereditaries - it's just silly to sit there because your ancestor was helpful to the monarch 300 years ago
* Scrapped the special seats for bishops, replacing them by selected church people chosen for their interesting ideas.
* Worked harder to have full diversity of expertise
* Scrapped the ability to delay legislation, and replaced it by having all legislation start in the Lords, so that the Commons would benefit from expert input.
I don't see much point in a second elected chamber. If we don't want a chamber of experts, let's just go unicameral.
LAB: 41% (-1)
CON: 32% (-1)
LDM: 9% (+2)
GRN: 4% (-1)
via @SavantaComRes, 11-13 Feb
(Changes with 6 Feb)
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1493898246053318662
The problem with a Unicameral setup imo is that it is so much easier to lose the checks and balances. And with our not-very-written constitution that is very important. Some unicameral Parliaments seem to get railroaded far too easily.
If we lose the hereditaries and the Bishops, the whole thing becomes much more politician-controlled. Plus I think those 2 categories add a balance to mitigate London-based members.
All legislation starting in the Lords is a good-sounding idea. I think a Header about how that might actually work would be great, and what it might cause us to lose - such as Private Members' Bills.
Who defines "full diversity of expertise"? One of Carl Gardner's (you may know him - used to write "Head of Legal" blog, and worked for Mr Blair on mainly Euro-constitutional things) suggestions has a voting house with a non-voting expert contingent who just took part in debates to inform the others. Almost like an integral committee.
I think it is very important to cover both what we gain by pruning, but also what we lose.
Some rather deliberately.
Friday does look very rough in England. At least having people working from home is easier now...
We need a body that has the legitimacy to block legislation from the Commons, but without creating a partisan logjam (which would be the result of an elected second chamber).
The answer is a Grand Jury, drawn from the population at random, to consider legislation.
As it stands at the moment, the "modern" QCF (NVQ as was) style apprenticeship schemes are often (not always) a box ticking observational exercise and funding is reliant on certification, so certificates are issued not on the basis of competence but on the basis of the provider being paid.
As someone who read Politics at University free of charge in the 1980s, the upshot of my three years served no direct function for the greater good of the nation, but it made me a well rounded and productive member of society nonetheless. Disregarding Higher Education has dangers too, it is all about working out how to pay for it, I suppose.
I had an email about Friday from the grid company yesterday - they haven't sent out messages for any other storms over the years, so either they have learnt from Arwen or they have been given advance notice of a likely red warning. The track is still a bit uncertain - it could be south coast only, or it could be a swath through England and particularly W Wales.
I see no reason why something like that should not be fundable via the Apprenticeship Levy.
Government either needs to subsidise more STEM places, or get out of the management of undergraduate courses and let the market set prices and place numbers.
The only reason I can see for having an elected upper chamber is if it's elected on a different basis to the lower chamber. The USA manages this by having one elected by districts and the other by states (although there's no difefrence on the smaller states) but I can't see that would work here unless you leave the Commons as is and elect the upper chamber proportionally on some basis or other.
That they won't try and get back on the front pages is less believable than aliens pulling 150G manoeuvres to show off.
How you populate that second chamber is secondary to the need for it to ensure bills don't have stupid gaps / flaws within them.
I don't have too much of an issue with your second and third points
The Commons often nods stuff through unless a major party makes an issue of it or an individual MP happens to be passionate about it, usually as a personal interest rather than because hundreds of constituents have raised it. There is simpkly too much legislation to have an informed view about all of it - it's not that MPs are wickedly conspiring to pass rubbish laws, but that they don't always notice the flaws. If the reformed Lords pointed out issues with new legislation more systematically, on the basis of experience of some Lords, that would give many more pointers to MPs on issues that they might raise.
Today we operate on an implicit assumption that we all have common interests which can be represented equally with a single vote apiece by representation in the Commons. Is this the case? Perhaps we should explicitly create different chambers, with different franchises, to represent different interest groups.
An honest approach might be to have a House of Big Business - 100 members appointed by the boards of the FTSE100 companies. It would save them the trouble of having to buy peerages.
A House of the Young could balance a House of the Old.
It might be better for some of the political disputes we have given institutional form, so that the necessary debates can happen more openly.
I agree that an alternative system would make an elected second chamber more interesting, but it's hard to find a method that doesn't result in a different mandate and endless argument about which one really represents the democratic will, as we see in the US with Congress often divided. Electing by regions, as some have suggested, will tend to introduce a bias to underpopulated areas (as the Senate does - 2 Senators each for New York and North Dakota). Electing by PR would effectively mean that the FPTP Commons could no longer get legislation through easily (depending how much blocking power you give the Lords) without cross-party deals. That might be a good thing, but if we think it's actually better than FPTP (as I do) then reforming the Commons is a more straightforward idea.
On the whole, I think it's better to have the two chambers having different functions - the Commons for democratic representation, the Lords for expert scrutiny.
Met Police launches investigation into 'cash for honours' allegations.
It follows media reports involving Prince Charles' former aide, a Saudi donor, and The Prince's Foundation
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1493912270686101504
The problem is that this is an existential issue for the GLP. Its whole point is that it can sue anyone it chooses over any error of public law. But that has now been rejected by the court. Crucially it raises money on the basis it can sue over any error.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-the-good-law-project-been-dealt-a-blow-
But the integral committee idea is good - I agree that my hypothetical asylum-seeker or ex-prisoner doesn't really need to be a voting member. Select Committees do try to invite a variety of opinions, but they tend to be establishment types, including the more serious NGOs. For example, a hearing on slaughterhouse conditions might well invite me, as an expert on animal welfare, but they'd be very unlikely to invite a slaughterhouse worker or even have any idea how to look for one.
When is this country going to move on from this absurd hat-doffing?
I'm in some sympathy .... but you surely realise a Labour Govt cannot & will not do this.
Because it will mean some serious redundancies in the Universities and it will mean some Universities going bankrupt.
Which party controls almost all the University seats?
There is such a thing as Realpolitik
Much like the EUs Qualified Majority Voting, and votes weighted to smaller countries.
The devil is in the detail of the system. Which is perhaps an advantage for evolutionary change as happens in the UK, as opposed to "sweep it all away and impose what the current lot like".
Agree on the two different functions point.
Ursula Von der Leyen also says EU sanction would go well beyond previous asset freezes/travel bans. She suggests exports of hi-tech components 'for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us' would be cut off. 'Our sanctions can bite very hard and the Kremlin knows this.'
https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1493903160632659972
Consider various Great Estates, or the more historic parts of London.
You wear a hat?