Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?
As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.
Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
Or Starmer in other words you mean.
But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.
Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁
Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁
Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.
Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
Got to make a fairly rare post of mine on here on this. All of the most recent national polling has Labor on an average of around 54% on a two party basis, which is what matters. Australian polling is generally amongst the best in the world, and even the polling disaster of the 2019 election was within the margin of error. The Coalition could still win but in no way is it justified to write Labor off (or even not still make them the favourites).
If this was just a standard political discussion site then I wouldn't be bothering posting this, but as betting is involved I feel that a sense of proportion should be advocated (FFS).
I like your post. Thanks for springing up and sharing it. You still have Labour favourites 🙂 and despite the clear direction of travel in recent polling. I think it’s clear direction of travel of recent polls HY and myself being swung by. I stuck out against HY’s confidence for months and weeks now, but the polls have tightened too much for me in last week for me to call it as Labour win as I was doing for so long. Are you not seeing the late swingback we are and HY clearly explained?
This is the real moment money is made in political betting, where we disagree strongly with each other, suggesting it could go one of two ways? I think it looks very tight. When looking tight, those with the momentum tend to win it?
Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?
As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.
Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
Or Starmer in other words you mean.
But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.
Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁
Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁
Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.
Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
Blimey. I just looked at those polls. What’s happened in the campaign? That’s some turnaround, and very clearly this election team is about to get a call from the U.K. Tories again.
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?
Not sure mortgage can be put at the door of the Home Secretary - when we set out what we are having to live on we surely list the take home amount, not take home amount minus mortgage but not minus anything else?
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?
Then she wouldn't need to use a foodbank. 100 for a TV and net package, 250 for leccy and gas, 300 to run a car, 50 for water, 600 for food and the rest
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.
The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.
And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
I suspect the private sector is bad for this too, but as a civil servant myself, I can attest that people don't get paid for their utility. They get paid for their seniority.
The public want good teachers and nurses. They don't want diversity and inclusion workers on £60,000 a year.
But the ethnic minority staff may want those workers, or move to good private sector employers where it's a matter of course.
If the public sector has made that case, it's passed me by. It might not get such a positive reaction from ethnic minority staff...
I just mean there is a reason why (say) a Big Four accountancy firm, a giant tech company or other large employers tend to have inclusion and diversity teams.
I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?
Are there any taxes that are unpopular with the people who don't think they pay them or ever will?
Personally I'd pay MPs a bit more and really cut back on allowances and expenses, but no way that'd be a popular policy.
You have my vote
Whilst I cannot promise not to let you down, I will promise that I will make any scandal bringing me down shady enough to be worthy of a Netflix thriller.
Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
Matthew Paris, I think.
That rings a bell. Yes, indeed, and on checking he did it twice - or rather did not cope twice. But also others, I find.
Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
Matthew Paris, I think.
Parris you mean. But Matthew Paris the monk of St Albans might also have tried penury and asceticism.
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.
The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.
And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
I suspect the private sector is bad for this too, but as a civil servant myself, I can attest that people don't get paid for their utility. They get paid for their seniority.
The public want good teachers and nurses. They don't want diversity and inclusion workers on £60,000 a year.
But the ethnic minority staff may want those workers, or move to good private sector employers where it's a matter of course.
If the public sector has made that case, it's passed me by. It might not get such a positive reaction from ethnic minority staff...
I just mean there is a reason why (say) a Big Four accountancy firm, a giant tech company or other large employers tend to have inclusion and diversity teams.
Because, like the public sector, they have plenty of money to piss up the wall?
My organisation employs around 320 people. Our HR department has around 12 people in it.
I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?
Are there any taxes that are unpopular with the people who don't think they pay them or ever will?
Surprisingly the answer may be yes. Possibly things like inheritance tax where people may not be in a position to have assets that will meet the thresholds, but still oppose them.
Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?
As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.
Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
Or Starmer in other words you mean.
But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.
Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁
Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁
Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.
Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
Blimey. I just looked at those polls. What’s happened in the campaign? That’s some turnaround, and very clearly this election team is about to get a call from the U.K. Tories again.
I glad you notice it too. I thought maybe I was rubbish. Spring has sprung up calling something that looks tight to me for Labour.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.
The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.
And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
I suspect the private sector is bad for this too, but as a civil servant myself, I can attest that people don't get paid for their utility. They get paid for their seniority.
The public want good teachers and nurses. They don't want diversity and inclusion workers on £60,000 a year.
But the ethnic minority staff may want those workers, or move to good private sector employers where it's a matter of course.
If the public sector has made that case, it's passed me by. It might not get such a positive reaction from ethnic minority staff...
I just mean there is a reason why (say) a Big Four accountancy firm, a giant tech company or other large employers tend to have inclusion and diversity teams.
Yes, it's because if they don't, they don't get public sector contracts.
I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?
Are there any taxes that are unpopular with the people who don't think they pay them or ever will?
Surprisingly the answer may be yes. Possibly things like inheritance tax where people may not be in a position to have assets that will meet the thresholds, but still oppose them.
Capital gains as well, once people understand what it is. Most believe/hope for a windfall one day.
Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
Bozza's usual game is to be sacked, or to resign, and fail upwards.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
All of our admin staff are leaving, or so it seems. Won't be anyone to book appointments soon.
Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
Bozza's usual game is to be sacked, or to resign, and fail upwards.
I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?
Are there any taxes that are unpopular with the people who don't think they pay them or ever will?
Surprisingly the answer may be yes. Possibly things like inheritance tax where people may not be in a position to have assets that will meet the thresholds, but still oppose them.
Capital gains as well, once people understand what it is. Most believe/hope for a windfall one day.
I confess that was going to be one of my examples, but I don't understand what it is so I thought I'd best not risk it unless I looked stupid.
Not typically a concern I have, but it's a discerning crowd.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
Yep, and their bosses get paid far too much.
That may be so. But we need qualified, experienced folk to do the hard yards. Over years and years.in many cases. Why on Earth would anyone aspire to be a social worker? And yet. They are vital.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
All of our admin staff are leaving, or so it seems. Won't be anyone to book appointments soon.
Very strong public sector pay restraint at a time of full employment is risky. Of course the employment market might change that equation soon enough.
Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
Bozza's usual game is to be sacked, or to resign, and fail upwards.
Looks like Labour got the vote result their campaign unit was praying for.
Once Starmer came out first for windfall tax, and Tories spent so long explaining why it’s a bad policy, it’s become impossible for the Tories to adopt it and making Starmer as the leader the nations policy guru, the one who brought real help to households.
Rishi hinting at it is just bizarre, he thinks it’s a Tory boost just hinting at it?
I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?
Are there any taxes that are unpopular with the people who don't think they pay them or ever will?
Surprisingly the answer may be yes. Possibly things like inheritance tax where people may not be in a position to have assets that will meet the thresholds, but still oppose them.
Capital gains as well, once people understand what it is. Most believe/hope for a windfall one day.
I confess that was going to be one of my examples, but I don't understand what it is so I thought I'd best not risk it unless I looked stupid.
Not typically a concern I have, but it's a discerning crowd.
I am doing what I normally do on here. I don’t understand it but I also don’t plan to refer to it in enough detail for that to be exposed. Should anyone challenge me I will just pick a fight on Brexit, Scottish independence, or AV.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
Yep, and their bosses get paid far too much.
That may be so. But we need qualified, experienced folk to do the hard yards. Over years and years.in many cases. Why on Earth would anyone aspire to be a social worker? And yet. They are vital.
I think it is a calling for some. They want to help. I massively sympathise. Social workers don’t kill children, evil parents do. Yet when the shit hits the fan the opprobrium seems worse for the social workers for failing to stop it. Never given any credit for the successes and the the overwhelming nature of the job.
Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
Bozza's usual game is to be sacked, or to resign, and fail upwards.
We should all be very careful what we wish for.
EU President next?
As Boris was born in New York he could be eligible for US President.
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.
The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.
And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
The broader problem is, of course, that the Government can't afford either to pay substantially higher wages to its employees, or bump up benefits so that they are sufficient to stop millions of people from starving or freezing to death next Winter, without raising taxes substantially. And, save for sticking plaster measures like windfall taxes on oil companies, the only sustainable options open to it are soaking the incomes of higher rate taxpayers and, above all, property, the major store of wealth in this country. The price of averting a massive wave of poverty is, primarily, the redistribution of the asset wealth of its core vote.
In short, when it comes down to a choice between upsetting the Waitrose clientele of Southern England and wealthy pensioners, or abandoning (predominantly Labour voting) public servants and poor people to waste away, what do we think the Government will do?
Expect some kind of extension of the Winter Fuel Allowance later in the year if the elderly howl loudly enough when energy bills go absolutely stratospheric in October, presumably paid for by cuts elsewhere. The working age population will just get a load of bullshit about Ukraine and be told to suck it up.
Hope everyone is well BTW. This is my first visit in ages. I suppose I've been prioritising my increasingly obsessional running habit over worrying about manifold horrors (e.g. whether we're all going to be incinerated by Mad Vlad's missiles,) and I'm very much better off for it.
Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
Bozza's usual game is to be sacked, or to resign, and fail upwards.
We should all be very careful what we wish for.
EU President next?
As Boris was born in New York he could be eligible for US President.
Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
Bozza's usual game is to be sacked, or to resign, and fail upwards.
We should all be very careful what we wish for.
EU President next?
There's a parallel universe where that could have worked quite well.
It remains extremely unlikely, but the quad theoretically possible on the final day of the season. That's completely unprecedented.
Come on Stevie G!
That's one way to let it slip.
That slip was for the greater good of LFC.
No slip and Liverpool win the title, no way FSG sack Rodgers the next year and usher in the glorious Klopp era.
No way Rodgers could match what Klopp has managed.
Thats for sure. I think Rogers has run out of steam at Leicester but our owners are not the sacking sort. Sacked by the World cup break though, I reckon.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
Yep, and their bosses get paid far too much.
That may be so. But we need qualified, experienced folk to do the hard yards. Over years and years.in many cases. Why on Earth would anyone aspire to be a social worker? And yet. They are vital.
I think it is a calling for some. They want to help. I massively sympathise. Social workers don’t kill children, evil parents do. Yet when the shit hits the fan the opprobrium seems worse for the social workers for failing to stop it. Never given any credit for the successes and the the overwhelming nature of the job.
You're right. But it's far more than child deaths. That's the tabloid stuff. Working with youngsters and steering them towards a life of tax-paying employnent rather than tax-eating incarceration is the bread and butter stuff. That is long-term invaluable. But takes years and is spectacularly unsexy. And economically priceless.
If Boris goes this year it will be on or after August 5th, the day he overtakes May for time served.
What will "do" for Boris Johnson will be polling showing an alternative candidate doing substantially better and likely to ensure a re-election for the Conservative Party in 2024.
The Prime Minister survives because, as someone once said "there is no alternative". In June 2019, Boris won because, alone among the leadership contenders, he could see off Farage and the BXP and win a majority for the Conservatives which is what happened.
If a poll showed Ben Wallace or Liz Truss doing significantly better, the backbenchers in the marginals would trigger a challenge out of self-preservation.
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?
£300 per week after mortgage is enough to live on if that's the question and I'm not sure what the mortgage has to do with the Home Secretary if that's been included.
I'm not saying that, I was just suggesting the numbers. I too am at a loss as a cursary glance at google suggests £45000.
So you are saying that Twitter got it wrong? Well blow me down with a feather.
Unsurprising since (A) its Twitter and (B) the one Twitter was naming was speaking in the Commons today which seemed unlikely for whoever this story was going to be about.
Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
Matthew Paris, I think.
That rings a bell. Yes, indeed, and on checking he did it twice - or rather did not cope twice. But also others, I find.
Spending 12% of his money going to see Newcastle play wasn't perhaps the best idea.
IIRC Parris later said he tried to live a working class life on the benefit money and if he'd been doing it in real life he would have gone to a library every day and happily read books.
Irrespective of what he did or would have done a week on benefits really shouldn't be hard - what would be difficult would be for life to be permanently conducted on low income.
Beans on toast and soup for a week is a different situation to beans on toast and soup forever.
If Boris goes this year it will be on or after August 5th, the day he overtakes May for time served.
What will "do" for Boris Johnson will be polling showing an alternative candidate doing substantially better and likely to ensure a re-election for the Conservative Party in 2024.
The Prime Minister survives because, as someone once said "there is no alternative". In June 2019, Boris won because, alone among the leadership contenders, he could see off Farage and the BXP and win a majority for the Conservatives which is what happened.
If a poll showed Ben Wallace or Liz Truss doing significantly better, the backbenchers in the marginals would trigger a challenge out of self-preservation.
Well, Boris has played a blinder in ensuring that there isn't a viable alternative. Becuase, after all, that does strengthen his position.
The next interesting question is whether there comes a point where the Conservative party thinks "Screw this, anyone, anything, would be better than this. Disinterring Edward Heath and letting his skeleton take us back into Europe would be an improvement."
We're clearly not there yet. But under this management? With 2.5 years until the next GE?
Remember, the Conservative party has two modes. Complacency and Pure, Blind Panic.
Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
Matthew Paris, I think.
That rings a bell. Yes, indeed, and on checking he did it twice - or rather did not cope twice. But also others, I find.
Spending 12% of his money going to see Newcastle play wasn't perhaps the best idea.
IIRC Parris later said he tried to live a working class life on the benefit money and if he'd been doing it in real life he would have gone to a library every day and happily read books.
Irrespective of what he did or would have done a week on benefits really shouldn't be hard - what would be difficult would be for life to be permanently conducted on low income.
Beans on toast and soup for a week is a different situation to beans on toast and soup forever.
When I was an undergrad I worked in a pub in the holidays. Mostly loved it, but if I knew that that would be it for life, it would not have been good. Everyone needs hope that things can be better.
Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
Matthew Paris, I think.
That rings a bell. Yes, indeed, and on checking he did it twice - or rather did not cope twice. But also others, I find.
Spending 12% of his money going to see Newcastle play wasn't perhaps the best idea.
IIRC Parris later said he tried to live a working class life on the benefit money and if he'd been doing it in real life he would have gone to a library every day and happily read books.
Irrespective of what he did or would have done a week on benefits really shouldn't be hard - what would be difficult would be for life to be permanently conducted on low income.
Beans on toast and soup for a week is a different situation to beans on toast and soup forever.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
All of our admin staff are leaving, or so it seems. Won't be anyone to book appointments soon.
Very strong public sector pay restraint at a time of full employment is risky. Of course the employment market might change that equation soon enough.
It's not so much a question of restraint as Councils simply not having the money. Many are targeting higher wage rises to the lower grades which is reasonable enough but no one is going to be able to keep pace with inflation if it gets near or above 10%.
Local Councils need the same kind of professionals other organisations have - lawyers, accountants, surveyors, engineers and the like. The problem is the private sector pays so much more (with career development) the best the public sector can offer either works for someone at the very end of their career or someone at the very start (and neither stay very long).
It's a perennial problem but as @Foxy suggests, it's spreading beyond the professional sectors into the more routine admin. A friend of mine recruiting for a southern local council told me he shortlisted six candidates for a post but by the time they were called to interview, five had already found better paid jobs.
This is the dilemma of "full employment" which in some ways is as much curse as blessing. We are seeing severe shortages in hospitality which mean restaurants cannot provide the kind of service they would like for the demand which is there for now but of course may not be in a few months. Racecourses are also suffering falling attendances - the cost of a day's racing can be quite prohibitive and no doubt has put off some.
Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
Matthew Paris, I think.
That rings a bell. Yes, indeed, and on checking he did it twice - or rather did not cope twice. But also others, I find.
Spending 12% of his money going to see Newcastle play wasn't perhaps the best idea.
IIRC Parris later said he tried to live a working class life on the benefit money and if he'd been doing it in real life he would have gone to a library every day and happily read books.
Irrespective of what he did or would have done a week on benefits really shouldn't be hard - what would be difficult would be for life to be permanently conducted on low income.
Beans on toast and soup for a week is a different situation to beans on toast and soup forever.
When I was an undergrad I worked in a pub in the holidays. Mostly loved it, but if I knew that that would be it for life, it would not have been good. Everyone needs hope that things can be better.
I worked as a short order cook for the summer before Med School. It was a sort of inverted society with all the kitchen and waiting staff students, and all the management and supervisors had left school at 16. Good fun for a summer but 2 months was enough. Worst bit was cleaning out the deep fat fryers. Coagulated congealed fat everywhere.
The free market applies to public sector recruitment too. The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified. Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed. But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
All of our admin staff are leaving, or so it seems. Won't be anyone to book appointments soon.
Very strong public sector pay restraint at a time of full employment is risky. Of course the employment market might change that equation soon enough.
It's not so much a question of restraint as Councils simply not having the money. Many are targeting higher wage rises to the lower grades which is reasonable enough but no one is going to be able to keep pace with inflation if it gets near or above 10%.
Local Councils need the same kind of professionals other organisations have - lawyers, accountants, surveyors, engineers and the like. The problem is the private sector pays so much more (with career development) the best the public sector can offer either works for someone at the very end of their career or someone at the very start (and neither stay very long).
It's a perennial problem but as @Foxy suggests, it's spreading beyond the professional sectors into the more routine admin. A friend of mine recruiting for a southern local council told me he shortlisted six candidates for a post but by the time they were called to interview, five had already found better paid jobs.
This is the dilemma of "full employment" which in some ways is as much curse as blessing. We are seeing severe shortages in hospitality which mean restaurants cannot provide the kind of service they would like for the demand which is there for now but of course may not be in a few months. Racecourses are also suffering falling attendances - the cost of a day's racing can be quite prohibitive and no doubt has put off some.
I have had several poor meals out in the last few months. Hospitality struggles to keep decent staff, no chance in an average pub.
If Boris goes this year it will be on or after August 5th, the day he overtakes May for time served.
What will "do" for Boris Johnson will be polling showing an alternative candidate doing substantially better and likely to ensure a re-election for the Conservative Party in 2024.
The Prime Minister survives because, as someone once said "there is no alternative". In June 2019, Boris won because, alone among the leadership contenders, he could see off Farage and the BXP and win a majority for the Conservatives which is what happened.
If a poll showed Ben Wallace or Liz Truss doing significantly better, the backbenchers in the marginals would trigger a challenge out of self-preservation.
Well, Boris has played a blinder in ensuring that there isn't a viable alternative. Becuase, after all, that does strengthen his position.
The next interesting question is whether there comes a point where the Conservative party thinks "Screw this, anyone, anything, would be better than this. Disinterring Edward Heath and letting his skeleton take us back into Europe would be an improvement."
We're clearly not there yet. But under this management? With 2.5 years until the next GE?
Remember, the Conservative party has two modes. Complacency and Pure, Blind Panic.
My husband reckons that the next GE will produce a small Tory majority along 1992 lines. There may be something in that. The position of the Government is, in many ways, calamitous - and yet, despite all of this, Labour's poll leads tend to fall within the 4-6% range and are somewhat more modest than they were earlier in the year.
On topic: these by-elections may prove quite enlightening. I do not expect a complete collapse of the Tory vote in either. I do expect a Liberal Democrat victory, a la Shropshire North, in the Devon seat. As for Wakefield, that might be surprisingly competitive. We shall see.
What will "do" for Boris Johnson will be polling showing an alternative candidate doing substantially better and likely to ensure a re-election for the Conservative Party in 2024.
The Prime Minister survives because, as someone once said "there is no alternative". In June 2019, Boris won because, alone among the leadership contenders, he could see off Farage and the BXP and win a majority for the Conservatives which is what happened.
If a poll showed Ben Wallace or Liz Truss doing significantly better, the backbenchers in the marginals would trigger a challenge out of self-preservation.
Well, Boris has played a blinder in ensuring that there isn't a viable alternative. Becuase, after all, that does strengthen his position.
The next interesting question is whether there comes a point where the Conservative party thinks "Screw this, anyone, anything, would be better than this. Disinterring Edward Heath and letting his skeleton take us back into Europe would be an improvement."
We're clearly not there yet. But under this management? With 2.5 years until the next GE?
Remember, the Conservative party has two modes. Complacency and Pure, Blind Panic.
I don't know - the question is whether the problem is the leader or the Party. This is complicated because we're not sure the extent to which those who voted for Boris Johnson as Conservative leader would support any successor. Does Boris, to paraphrase a famous commercial, reach parts of the electorate no other Conservative can reach?
If the Conservative Brand is tainted beyond repair by what Johnson, Sunak, Hancock and others have done, it'll make little or no difference - the electorate will deliver the coup de grace and Johnson's life expectancy as Tory leader can be measured in hours. That at least will offer a defeated Party the luxury to re-group and re-think in Opposition after 14 years in Government which may be no bad thing.
What will "do" for Boris Johnson will be polling showing an alternative candidate doing substantially better and likely to ensure a re-election for the Conservative Party in 2024.
The Prime Minister survives because, as someone once said "there is no alternative". In June 2019, Boris won because, alone among the leadership contenders, he could see off Farage and the BXP and win a majority for the Conservatives which is what happened.
If a poll showed Ben Wallace or Liz Truss doing significantly better, the backbenchers in the marginals would trigger a challenge out of self-preservation.
Well, Boris has played a blinder in ensuring that there isn't a viable alternative. Becuase, after all, that does strengthen his position.
The next interesting question is whether there comes a point where the Conservative party thinks "Screw this, anyone, anything, would be better than this. Disinterring Edward Heath and letting his skeleton take us back into Europe would be an improvement."
We're clearly not there yet. But under this management? With 2.5 years until the next GE?
Remember, the Conservative party has two modes. Complacency and Pure, Blind Panic.
I don't know - the question is whether the problem is the leader or the Party. This is complicated because we're not sure the extent to which those who voted for Boris Johnson as Conservative leader would support any successor. Does Boris, to paraphrase a famous commercial, reach parts of the electorate no other Conservative can reach?
If the Conservative Brand is tainted beyond repair by what Johnson, Sunak, Hancock and others have done, it'll make little or no difference - the electorate will deliver the coup de grace and Johnson's life expectancy as Tory leader can be measured in hours. That at least will offer a defeated Party the luxury to re-group and re-think in Opposition after 14 years in Government which may be no bad thing.
I think the problem is he alienates many and attracts many. That is always so for every Party leader. But the numbers for the Big Dog are quite exceptionally large. And really visceral. There are lifelong Tories who won't vote for them while he's in charge. Whereas there are others who will vote Boris but never for a generic Tory. There are posters on here who provide both examples. The trouble is weighing them. And all the others in between. This is why I can't make any call on the next GE whatsoever. And am sceptical of those on both sides who claim to. The variables are simply too wide. And that's before we consider the economy, scandal, the psychological aftershocks of pandemic, War.
So you are saying that Twitter got it wrong? Well blow me down with a feather.
Or should that have been.. *innocent face*?
Yes, Guido appears to have it nailed. Very pointed choice of photo, too.
Not a great place for a by-election for any of the opposition parties.
Though if that is the constituency, it was Labour in 1997.
I don't know the area so not sure what if any demographic changes have happened since then.
Well... purely hypothetically... It ain't fertile territory for the Lib Dems. Even less than the North Shropshires of this world.
And whilst the London effect is rippling outwards, Labour wouldn't fancy their chances either. Not yet. Winning one single council seat in the constituency for the first time in ages is a harbinger, but isn't enough. Come back in a decade or so.
On the other hand, voters experiencing repulsion have to go somewhere. And at least some of the party success in the area is down to one individual.
538 give Liverpool an 18% chance of winning the league, an uncomfortably high % for Man City.
According to the Sky commentary today, the last six times the title race has gone to the last day, the team leading going in to the last day won.
The last time there was a lead change on the final day was 1989.
And the team in second won at the leaders on that occasion. I looked back through the archives and I couldn’t find lead changes where both teams played in different games at the same time.
Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
Bozza's usual game is to be sacked, or to resign, and fail upwards.
We should all be very careful what we wish for.
Well, Charles will at the very least.
I know PB has a vacancy for a slightly pompous, posho name dropper, but surely aiming too high for BJ?
Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
Matthew Paris, I think.
That rings a bell. Yes, indeed, and on checking he did it twice - or rather did not cope twice. But also others, I find.
Spending 12% of his money going to see Newcastle play wasn't perhaps the best idea.
IIRC Parris later said he tried to live a working class life on the benefit money and if he'd been doing it in real life he would have gone to a library every day and happily read books.
Irrespective of what he did or would have done a week on benefits really shouldn't be hard - what would be difficult would be for life to be permanently conducted on low income.
Beans on toast and soup for a week is a different situation to beans on toast and soup forever.
When I was an undergrad I worked in a pub in the holidays. Mostly loved it, but if I knew that that would be it for life, it would not have been good. Everyone needs hope that things can be better.
I worked as a short order cook for the summer before Med School. It was a sort of inverted society with all the kitchen and waiting staff students, and all the management and supervisors had left school at 16. Good fun for a summer but 2 months was enough. Worst bit was cleaning out the deep fat fryers. Coagulated congealed fat everywhere.
Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology
The madness deepens, and widens
I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home
So, yes, educationally cancelled
If the story is true as reported, then "cancelled" is not the right word. Nor is this a case of just bullying. Rather the school may well be guilty of discrimination against her because of her beliefs, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
There may also be safeguarding issues as well as a breach of their own policies on bullying etc.
Were I one of the governors, I'd be very concerned.
538 give Liverpool an 18% chance of winning the league, an uncomfortably high % for Man City.
According to the Sky commentary today, the last six times the title race has gone to the last day, the team leading going in to the last day won.
The last time there was a lead change on the final day was 1989.
And the team in second won at the leaders on that occasion. I looked back through the archives and I couldn’t find lead changes where both teams played in different games at the same time.
Derby County in 1972. Though that isn't the same. But neither Leeds nor Liverpool won their final game. After Derby had finished. That wasn't a lead change. But it was a shock outcome to the final day. City were up there too.
What will "do" for Boris Johnson will be polling showing an alternative candidate doing substantially better and likely to ensure a re-election for the Conservative Party in 2024.
The Prime Minister survives because, as someone once said "there is no alternative". In June 2019, Boris won because, alone among the leadership contenders, he could see off Farage and the BXP and win a majority for the Conservatives which is what happened.
If a poll showed Ben Wallace or Liz Truss doing significantly better, the backbenchers in the marginals would trigger a challenge out of self-preservation.
Well, Boris has played a blinder in ensuring that there isn't a viable alternative. Becuase, after all, that does strengthen his position.
The next interesting question is whether there comes a point where the Conservative party thinks "Screw this, anyone, anything, would be better than this. Disinterring Edward Heath and letting his skeleton take us back into Europe would be an improvement."
We're clearly not there yet. But under this management? With 2.5 years until the next GE?
Remember, the Conservative party has two modes. Complacency and Pure, Blind Panic.
I don't know - the question is whether the problem is the leader or the Party. This is complicated because we're not sure the extent to which those who voted for Boris Johnson as Conservative leader would support any successor. Does Boris, to paraphrase a famous commercial, reach parts of the electorate no other Conservative can reach?
If the Conservative Brand is tainted beyond repair by what Johnson, Sunak, Hancock and others have done, it'll make little or no difference - the electorate will deliver the coup de grace and Johnson's life expectancy as Tory leader can be measured in hours. That at least will offer a defeated Party the luxury to re-group and re-think in Opposition after 14 years in Government which may be no bad thing.
I think the problem is he alienates many and attracts many. That is always so for every Party leader. But the numbers for the Big Dog are quite exceptionally large. And really visceral. There are lifelong Tories who won't vote for them while he's in charge. Whereas there are others who will vote Boris but never for a generic Tory. There are posters on here who provide both examples. The trouble is weighing them. And all the others in between. This is why I can't make any call on the next GE whatsoever. And am sceptical of those on both sides who claim to. The variables are simply too wide. And that's before we consider the economy, scandal, the psychological aftershocks of pandemic, War.
Australia, as they say in US racing, is going right down to the wire.
One or two on here writing off Labor though even the Resolve poll still gives the two-party vote to Labor 51-49.
The collapse of the Aussie duopoly to 65% is extraordinary - even Resolve has 6% voting Independent and 4% Other along with 14% Green, 6% for One Nation and 4% for United Australia.
Last time 75% voted Coalition or Labor.
The older Newspoll and Ray Morgan polls better for Labor with a clear two-party lead (53-47 and 54-46 respectively). The question is whether Resolve has spotted a trend of Labor's vote weakening or whether it is an outlier - we'll know by Saturday afternoon (UK).
Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology
The madness deepens, and widens
I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home
So, yes, educationally cancelled
If the story is true as reported, then "cancelled" is not the right word. Nor is this a case of just bullying. Rather the school may well be guilty of discrimination against her because of her beliefs, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
There may also be safeguarding issues as well as a breach of their own policies on bullying etc.
Were I one of the governors, I'd be very concerned.
Aren't they protected by the "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" ruling?
Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology
The madness deepens, and widens
I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home
So, yes, educationally cancelled
If the story is true as reported, then "cancelled" is not the right word. Nor is this a case of just bullying. Rather the school may well be guilty of discrimination against her because of her beliefs, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
There may also be safeguarding issues as well as a breach of their own policies on bullying etc.
Were I one of the governors, I'd be very concerned.
Aren't they protected by the "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" ruling?
Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology
The madness deepens, and widens
I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home
So, yes, educationally cancelled
If the story is true as reported, then "cancelled" is not the right word. Nor is this a case of just bullying. Rather the school may well be guilty of discrimination against her because of her beliefs, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
There may also be safeguarding issues as well as a breach of their own policies on bullying etc.
Were I one of the governors, I'd be very concerned.
Aren't they protected by the "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" ruling?
Schools, like a great many organisations, operate more on the 'whatever will give us the easiest time of things' principle, rather than genuine consideration of legislative requirements.
Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology
The madness deepens, and widens
I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home
So, yes, educationally cancelled
If the story is true as reported, then "cancelled" is not the right word. Nor is this a case of just bullying. Rather the school may well be guilty of discrimination against her because of her beliefs, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
There may also be safeguarding issues as well as a breach of their own policies on bullying etc.
Were I one of the governors, I'd be very concerned.
Aren't they protected by the "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" ruling?
Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology
The madness deepens, and widens
I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home
So, yes, educationally cancelled
If the story is true as reported, then "cancelled" is not the right word. Nor is this a case of just bullying. Rather the school may well be guilty of discrimination against her because of her beliefs, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
There may also be safeguarding issues as well as a breach of their own policies on bullying etc.
Were I one of the governors, I'd be very concerned.
Aren't they protected by the "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" ruling?
So it is very much a protected belief under the Equality Act and the school is potentially in trouble.
But we need to know all the facts.
On a less serious note but on the same subject: my daughters were watching some Netflix children's programme earlier ('the babysitters' club') - the storyline of which appeared to be: young girl babysitting a young boy who identified as a girl, had to take him to hospital, was unnecessarily furious to doctors for referring to boy as girl, was not told to grow up and let the doctors do their curing-the-sick-person thing and instead was lauded by all. Honestly, Netflix, just stop it.
Australia, as they say in US racing, is going right down to the wire.
One or two on here writing off Labor though even the Resolve poll still gives the two-party vote to Labor 51-49.
The collapse of the Aussie duopoly to 65% is extraordinary - even Resolve has 6% voting Independent and 4% Other along with 14% Green, 6% for One Nation and 4% for United Australia.
Last time 75% voted Coalition or Labor.
The older Newspoll and Ray Morgan polls better for Labor with a clear two-party lead (53-47 and 54-46 respectively). The question is whether Resolve has spotted a trend of Labor's vote weakening or whether it is an outlier - we'll know by Saturday afternoon (UK).
Roy Morgan also has Labor and the Coalition tied on the primary vote on 34% each, Resolve has the Coalition ahead now 34% to 31% for Labor.
The new Essential poll also has Labor's 2PP lead slashed to 51% to 49%, which could be enough on its own for the Coalition to be re elected if the marginals go the right way with the Coalition leading 36% to 35% for Labor on the primary vote.
All have Morrison ahead of Albanese as preferred PM
My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.
A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.
Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.
The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”
She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.
The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.
The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.
And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
I know of one (“outstanding”) primary near here which is looking at a complete exodus of its teaching staff within this academic year. Not a single one staying.
The turnover among heads locally is also colossal.
So you are saying that Twitter got it wrong? Well blow me down with a feather.
Or should that have been.. *innocent face*?
Yes, Guido appears to have it nailed. Very pointed choice of photo, too.
Not a great place for a by-election for any of the opposition parties.
Though if that is the constituency, it was Labour in 1997.
I don't know the area so not sure what if any demographic changes have happened since then.
There's actually a case in some seats for saying that tactical voting is inappropriate and people should just vote for whoever they prefer. But I'd expect Labour to lay claim to tactical support in this place, whenever an election should occur - we got a decent 32% in 2017, though it dropped to 27% last time (LibDems on 6%, Greens on 3%. Wikipedia says "Although the constituency includes the middle-income Romford Garden Suburb area, ex-council housing forms a substantial part of the constituency, largely bought under the Right to Buy and the borough has a high level of households with vehicle ownership".
‘We picked a load of chancers and sex pests last time, but give us another chance…’ … The leader of the House of Commons, Mark Spencer, said last week that his party was committed to selecting higher quality candidates at the next general election, claiming the snap contests of 2017 and 2019 had led to mistakes.…
He is truly thick. So well qualified for the current cabinet.
Comments
This is the real moment money is made in political betting, where we disagree strongly with each other, suggesting it could go one of two ways? I think it looks very tight. When looking tight, those with the momentum tend to win it?
https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1526655227755216896
It belittles their article on the impact on servicemen of the 1956 A bomb tests.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/former-mp-back-dole-tv-1603097
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2013/apr/02/iain-duncan-smith-mp-living-on-benefits
But Matthew Paris the monk of St Albans might also have tried penury and asceticism.
My organisation employs around 320 people. Our HR department has around 12 people in it.
The situation in social work, especially in child protection is dire. It's all agency and newly qualified.
Course. Social workers don't get much public sympathy. Their successes aren't noticed.
But they do some of the most important jobs in the land.
That is all.
We should all be very careful what we wish for.
Not typically a concern I have, but it's a discerning crowd.
Roll on the final day of the season.
But we need qualified, experienced folk to do the hard yards. Over years and years.in many cases.
Why on Earth would anyone aspire to be a social worker?
And yet. They are vital.
Come on Stevie G!
Once Starmer came out first for windfall tax, and Tories spent so long explaining why it’s a bad policy, it’s become impossible for the Tories to adopt it and making Starmer as the leader the nations policy guru, the one who brought real help to households.
Rishi hinting at it is just bizarre, he thinks it’s a Tory boost just hinting at it?
In short, when it comes down to a choice between upsetting the Waitrose clientele of Southern England and wealthy pensioners, or abandoning (predominantly Labour voting) public servants and poor people to waste away, what do we think the Government will do?
Expect some kind of extension of the Winter Fuel Allowance later in the year if the elderly howl loudly enough when energy bills go absolutely stratospheric in October, presumably paid for by cuts elsewhere. The working age population will just get a load of bullshit about Ukraine and be told to suck it up.
Hope everyone is well BTW. This is my first visit in ages. I suppose I've been prioritising my increasingly obsessional running habit over worrying about manifold horrors (e.g. whether we're all going to be incinerated by Mad Vlad's missiles,) and I'm very much better off for it.
All it would take is Liverpool to draw 5-5 with Wolves, while Villa beat Man City 6-0 at City . . .
No slip and Liverpool win the title, no way FSG sack Rodgers the next year and usher in the glorious Klopp era.
No way Rodgers could match what Klopp has managed.
Dee.
Hell.
That is all.
Not many Managers say no to a club like that. Klopp was wise to do so.
Working with youngsters and steering them towards a life of tax-paying employnent rather than tax-eating incarceration is the bread and butter stuff.
That is long-term invaluable. But takes years and is spectacularly unsexy. And economically priceless.
The Prime Minister survives because, as someone once said "there is no alternative". In June 2019, Boris won because, alone among the leadership contenders, he could see off Farage and the BXP and win a majority for the Conservatives which is what happened.
If a poll showed Ben Wallace or Liz Truss doing significantly better, the backbenchers in the marginals would trigger a challenge out of self-preservation.
IIRC Parris later said he tried to live a working class life on the benefit money and if he'd been doing it in real life he would have gone to a library every day and happily read books.
Irrespective of what he did or would have done a week on benefits really shouldn't be hard - what would be difficult would be for life to be permanently conducted on low income.
Beans on toast and soup for a week is a different situation to beans on toast and soup forever.
The next interesting question is whether there comes a point where the Conservative party thinks "Screw this, anyone, anything, would be better than this. Disinterring Edward Heath and letting his skeleton take us back into Europe would be an improvement."
We're clearly not there yet. But under this management? With 2.5 years until the next GE?
Remember, the Conservative party has two modes. Complacency and Pure, Blind Panic.
Local Councils need the same kind of professionals other organisations have - lawyers, accountants, surveyors, engineers and the like. The problem is the private sector pays so much more (with career development) the best the public sector can offer either works for someone at the very end of their career or someone at the very start (and neither stay very long).
It's a perennial problem but as @Foxy suggests, it's spreading beyond the professional sectors into the more routine admin. A friend of mine recruiting for a southern local council told me he shortlisted six candidates for a post but by the time they were called to interview, five had already found better paid jobs.
This is the dilemma of "full employment" which in some ways is as much curse as blessing. We are seeing severe shortages in hospitality which mean restaurants cannot provide the kind of service they would like for the demand which is there for now but of course may not be in a few months. Racecourses are also suffering falling attendances - the cost of a day's racing can be quite prohibitive and no doubt has put off some.
Not a great place for a by-election for any of the opposition parties.
I don't know the area so not sure what if any demographic changes have happened since then.
On topic: these by-elections may prove quite enlightening. I do not expect a complete collapse of the Tory vote in either. I do expect a Liberal Democrat victory, a la Shropshire North, in the Devon seat. As for Wakefield, that might be surprisingly competitive. We shall see.
It's happened again.
If the Conservative Brand is tainted beyond repair by what Johnson, Sunak, Hancock and others have done, it'll make little or no difference - the electorate will deliver the coup de grace and Johnson's life expectancy as Tory leader can be measured in hours. That at least will offer a defeated Party the luxury to re-group and re-think in Opposition after 14 years in Government which may be no bad thing.
A by-election in these circumstances in 1994/5 would have had Blair fancying his chances of getting it.
Of course the LOTO is no Blair.
But the numbers for the Big Dog are quite exceptionally large. And really visceral.
There are lifelong Tories who won't vote for them while he's in charge.
Whereas there are others who will vote Boris but never for a generic Tory.
There are posters on here who provide both examples.
The trouble is weighing them. And all the others in between. This is why I can't make any call on the next GE whatsoever. And am sceptical of those on both sides who claim to.
The variables are simply too wide. And that's before we consider the economy, scandal, the psychological aftershocks of pandemic, War.
The last time there was a lead change on the final day was 1989.
And whilst the London effect is rippling outwards, Labour wouldn't fancy their chances either. Not yet. Winning one single council seat in the constituency for the first time in ages is a harbinger, but isn't enough. Come back in a decade or so.
On the other hand, voters experiencing repulsion have to go somewhere. And at least some of the party success in the area is down to one individual.
How I laughed.
There may also be safeguarding issues as well as a breach of their own policies on bullying etc.
Were I one of the governors, I'd be very concerned.
That wasn't a lead change. But it was a shock outcome to the final day.
City were up there too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gameofthepeople.com/2020/08/13/derby-leeds-liverpool-and-city-anyone-could-have-won-the-1972-title-race/amp/
One or two on here writing off Labor though even the Resolve poll still gives the two-party vote to Labor 51-49.
The collapse of the Aussie duopoly to 65% is extraordinary - even Resolve has 6% voting Independent and 4% Other along with 14% Green, 6% for One Nation and 4% for United Australia.
Last time 75% voted Coalition or Labor.
The older Newspoll and Ray Morgan polls better for Labor with a clear two-party lead (53-47 and 54-46 respectively). The question is whether Resolve has spotted a trend of Labor's vote weakening or whether it is an outlier - we'll know by Saturday afternoon (UK).
So it is very much a protected belief under the Equality Act and the school is potentially in trouble.
But we need to know all the facts.
Honestly, Netflix, just stop it.
The new Essential poll also has Labor's 2PP lead slashed to 51% to 49%, which could be enough on its own for the Coalition to be re elected if the marginals go the right way with the Coalition leading 36% to 35% for Labor on the primary vote.
All have Morrison ahead of Albanese as preferred PM
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/18/essential-poll-labor-remains-in-lead-but-race-tightens-after-liberal-party-election-campaign-launch
The turnover among heads locally is also colossal.
There are a lot of "ifs" before any by-election.
… The leader of the House of Commons, Mark Spencer, said last week that his party was committed to selecting higher quality candidates at the next general election, claiming the snap contests of 2017 and 2019 had led to mistakes.…
He is truly thick. So well qualified for the current cabinet.