It's not patronising at all, we teach children and young people how to treat others. Do you think that always takes? That as adults all are respectful and understanding? What is a church but trying to teach people how to treat others, often preaching treating others with respect and understanding?
How arrogant of you to assume no one has anything to learn once they're an adult.
I consider myself pretty unwoke, to the extent it's a thing, and examples exist of these sorts of courses being wasted of time just promoting a political message, but the idea people, all of us, cannot be aided by guidance on how to behave is ridiculous. Do you think people spring fully formed into the world and cannot learn new ways? That some people might not realise if they are disrespectful?
The way I look at it is that I have absolutely no desire to cause unnecessary offence, indeed that understates it: I want to show people respect and courtesy. I am a very, very long way from omniscient too. If I can avoid carelessly causing someone distress or accidently insulting them because of some implication in my language that I was simply unaware of I would of course want to do so: who wouldn't?
I am much more resistant to the limitation of ideas but again I would want to both understand why some might think that idea offensive and to be capable of discussing these ideas without causing gratuitous distress or insult. I am very open to advice on these matters and do not consider it patronising in the least.
I am more cynical. I don't want to cause offence in my dealings with people, but this is because I am thinking primarily of self preservation. I've seen for many years of my career that disgruntled people can latch on to anything to feign and fabricate offence; and whereas such complaints where once brushed off as trivial, now they can be potentially career destroying.
My latest insight, with the trans issue, is don't call anyone Mr or Mrs x. Just call them by their first name. The repurcussions of not calling someone by their proper title, even in a supposedly formal setting, are far less significant than that which may arise through misgendering them.
I think we should all try and avoid sexism, racism, ageism etc - even though it is rooted very deeply within our psychology. But the idea that we can ultimately avoid offence is laughably utopian, because it will always reconstruct itself in some way.
I still maintain that many of these politicians must be secretly hoping that the place will ultimately burn down. They'd then be armed with an excuse for spending money on a shiny, modern replacement.
Itd make more sense. They made a decision, now have reopened and seemingly deferred it (things seem to have progressed bigger all in years) and whilst arguing about moving out was bound to happen (even though it'll be much quicker and cheaper), they wont even agree to the eminently sensible option of moving some of them across the street, which would also surely be quicker and cheaper, or elsewhere nearby.
The whole thing makes me spitting mad.
It makes no sense to do anything other than have them all move out. Rent the QEII centre and set up something there for a couple of years. Re-purpose any empty space in Whitehall as offices.
The cost does seem astonishing though, it would be definitely be cheaper to knock down large chunks of the building and re-build a replica to modern building codes. The Burj Khalifa only cost $2bn, and it’s half a mile high! (No asbestos all over the site there though).
The what the government should do, is sell specific bonds for the project so that’s it’s explicitly not being paid for out of current public money. Think of it as a 50-year mortgage on the new building.
The building wouldn't be great security though...
Imagine a default. The government is going to be reluctant to let some hedge fund seize the mother of parliaments... and then what is your alternative use?
The Labour Party was set up in the first place to predominantly be a party for people with few or no qualifications. Why are they so unpopular with this group today?
I think that this is the more interesting question and the voting patterns of the US are remarkably similar in this respect with Republicans doing way better with lower socio-economic groups than you would expect. Deemocrats also find it easier to attract graduates than working class folk.
Age obviously has a lot to do with it but I don't think it is the whole answer. I think that you need to look at the policy mix. Graduates as a very broad generality believe in an activist state that can do good. Non graduates look at a state that is very good for those employed by it (disproportionately graduates, funnily enough) but which is pretty crap at doing much for them.
Where the State does express an interest it is disproportionately interested in minorities, in those with unusual sexual characteristics or proclivities, in the approved list of the oppressed. It shows almost no interest in the needs of the indigenous majority who get very little help or assistance with pretty tough lives. This may not be entirely true in fact but it is in the noise and in the media; it is what the graduates working in these organisations like to talk about obsessively. These non graduates find that a distinct turn off and are attracted to a party that treats the State as a part of the problem rather than the solution.
The answer from the left's point of view is to refocus the efforts of the State to those who actually need their help as opposed to being suitable for their well paid largesse. But, increasingly, they hold these people and their views in contempt. We saw this with Hilary in the US and of course in the Brexit arguments here. I don't think that they can bear going near the people that they claim to represent and once did in a dim and distant time.
This is in my view hitting the nail on the head absolutely. Help should be on a need basis not on a which checkbox you tick basis and yes we do need a state to act as a backstop. However far to often you find that when you need help you can't get it but you could if you ticked some boxes. A case in point is education...you will here people saying group x is being disadvantaged and not doing as well lets help them...when its white males from poor backgrounds deafened by silence. I am in no way saying those groups shouldn't be helped. I am saying help those most in need and target them rather than segregate them by gender faith sexuality colour.
We also should really be having the conversation. This is how much money the state has. This is how much each thing costs to do well. Pick what you want to do till it fills the money supply and the rest will have to rely on charities
The irony is that it is the modern Conservative party that is taxing people until the pips squeek, who think the answer to every problem is more State, whether it is more policemen, more doctors and nurses or more regulation. Even Gordon Brown didn't tax people as severely as this "Tory" government is. Which leaves the group I have sought to describe with my wild generalisations nowhere to go at all.
Precisely, I have been unable to vote since 2010. My constituency only ever seems to have a choice of LD, Lab or Con and they are all equally of the same mind when it comes to state spending.
Putting my money where my mouth is
the state should be spending on the following to fully fund them
Defence Rule of law - police, courts,prisons, borders Education - up to 18 and maybe subsidies for subjects we want people to take Health - though with designated activities you pay or you have insurance that pays. I am thinking for example driving insurance companies should pay, same for sports should be insurance and for safe ones will be cheap I suspect. Absolutely no to stuff like tattoo removal or ivf Standards setting Welfare state including benefits, pensions and social services
Once those are fully funded and actually functioning if we have money left over then we decide what else we should do with it
No funding for research? No funding for embassies or trade delegations? Who’s paying for elections to be conducted? Oh, are we defaulting on all our debt obligations then? Who pays for roads? Who pays for other transport infrastructure? Community centres? Libraries? Rubbish collection? Supporting economic development?
If the money has run out after the essentials then it is privately funded. There is only so much money you can take off people. When it is spent it is spent simple as that. Let us not forget most transport infrastructure, was built with private money oringally, the same with universities and libraries and research. Why do you think its bad saying this is the money we have lets spend it on essentials first. Then if we have money left over we can spend it on nice to haves. As for rubbish collection and community centres....not the job of central government. Thats council stuff and we are talking central government here.
Someone wisely said the other day its not we are underfunding the state as its taking more and more off our money. It is the fact the state is trying to do too much with the result that everything is underfunded. So lets do the essentials right. If we have money left over we can spend it on nice to haves.
When we talk about private money originally building universities and infrastructure... well, for centuries, "private money" meant the monarchy and aristocracy, who were effectively functioning as the state before we moved to democracy.
Local government (England figures) receives about a quarter of its funding from central government. If you're chopping that, could you just clarify if you are happier with higher council tax or which bin collection days you want dropped?
Under your plan, we're still defaulting on our debt obligations. We've still shut all our embassies overseas (or is private money paying for those?). Our economy is tanking without government support through research (see Mazzucato's work). Welfare costs are rising given there's no support for economic development to help create jobs, there's no support for individuals in further education so they get themselves back in the labour market. Our national energy infrastructure fails. Our food security disappears...
So your solution then is to fund everything craply and let it fall apart. We cannot continue this way. Your way has been tried for the last 40 years and has left us with shit everything so pardon me if I tell your way to go take a hike. We have tried it . It failed your idea are a complete and utter waste of time as the last 4 decades have proved so excuse me when I tell you to take a hike because you are wrong and we have empirical proof you are wrong.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
If as I expect Durham Plod once again say "this was not an offence" then there truly was nothing to see. No break of the law. And if I'm wrong then they quit and I say "I was wrong". And will cry laughing at the horrible mess Labour have put themselves in.
As for surety in legal cases, whilst you can believe your case is very strong there is always the potential that either your understanding of the law is wrong or the jury make a finding because they can, or judges can have lapses.
I assume that as a leading lawyer Starmer isn't going have done a "whoops I had no idea" like Bonzo. So we will see will we not.
As I’ve said before, I’ve been there, as - it seems - have many PB-ers. It’s great that we can talk about it on here without shame or embarrassment. Sharing is part of curing. And the other parts of curing are the usual: exercise, good healthy food, fresh air, try and socialise if you can, but don’t curse yourself if you can’t, don’t refuse the happy pills if it gets that bad
Alcohol is a puzzler. All the medical advice says Don’t do it, booze makes it worse, it’s a depressant. And yet it numbs the pain, doesn’t it? And that is really quite helpful, at times. Each to their own
Most of all remember that depression is like bad weather. There isn’t THAT much you can do, but shelter and endure, but bad weather ALWAYS passes. Hunker down and sit it out
Morning! Sharing is definitely part of curing - its just that so many of my friends seem to have had a mental kicking for various reasons over the last few years. I think I've become increasingly prone to bouts of it but at least now I know the warning signs and can usually find a way to pull back from the edge of that drop into the pit.
What would be great would be if I could drop the 15kgs the happy pills added to my frame. OK so I could make better food / drink choices and I'm not as fit as I was, but I tried hard and nothing shifts it more than temporarily - we all seem to have a balanced weight that we come back to, and mine is just a chunk more than it was pre happy pills.
Here’s a pic of my office this morning. Might help moods around here
More seriously, thanks for your account of your Black Dog. It seems to bite people in very different ways. I don’t get the shakes or anxiety attacks, when it is really bad (and that is very rare, thank god) I become kind of inert. I drag myself out of bed if I can but then I just sit there, slumped. Staring at nothing. Bleak and immobile
One weird thing is that it is physically painful. A pain somewhere in my spine. Or my chest. Like heartbreak. Bloody horrible
And of course when it is really bad, all the genuinely good advice: exercise, see people, eat well, becomes irrelevant as you have no energy nor desire nor ability to do anything. Except maybe drink booze (and that is where booze can be an issue, although it does numb the pain)
But it did pass. Like the rain. My improvement was achingly slow but noticeable. One day I went for a walk. Then a longer walk. Then I saw a friend. Chatted with a neighbour. Slow slow slow but i resurfaced. Probably took six months from beginning to end of the nasty stuff
I still get glimpses even now - like acid flashbacks - ugh
In which case I am going to look at this amazing view, drink more coffee, and do some work. That also helps: work. Raises the self esteem
I'm not sure that will raise our spirits or just depress us that we aren't all there, although I bet you are glad we aren't.
I have been waiting for weeks for you to post on the various stories about the possibility that Homo floresiensis may still be alive today. I thought this was right down your street. Although it is almost certainly not true the idea has been reported upon seriously, even if skeptically.
It’s Charlie’s Coffee and Brunch bar. By the harbour. I’ll get you an espresso
I am following your and Daughter's travel itineraries.
Any moment now I expect to find a picture of you both appearing in my WhatsApp ("Mum - I met someone else who reads PB for hours over a drink. Honestly you both need to get a life.").
I still maintain that many of these politicians must be secretly hoping that the place will ultimately burn down. They'd then be armed with an excuse for spending money on a shiny, modern replacement.
Itd make more sense. They made a decision, now have reopened and seemingly deferred it (things seem to have progressed bigger all in years) and whilst arguing about moving out was bound to happen (even though it'll be much quicker and cheaper), they wont even agree to the eminently sensible option of moving some of them across the street, which would also surely be quicker and cheaper, or elsewhere nearby.
The whole thing makes me spitting mad.
The issue is the media
Headline “What Cost of Living Crisis? Government Spends £13 Billion on Fancy Offices For MPs”
It was and is never going to be a popular decision. Hence the delays happening long before the recent spike of concerns around cost of living.
But the longer they take to make a decision the more expensive it will become (they also clearly lean on selecting the more expensive option as they dont want to move out).
Either bite the bullet (as they had seemed to, but now reversed) and do it or be clear they intend to do nothing and stop wasting time on discussion of it.
I have vague hopes that the new improved building will overlook the need for a House of Lords. Everything else we have tried for the last 100 years have failed so lets try the planners.
I'm more concerned that theyd fall for the trick that the political culture will be transformed by the building they meet in, and decide it was the old fashioned wallpaper and straight lines holding them back or something, so go for something 'new', regardless of quality.
Plus lets be honest, any new building would be shoddily constructed, massively over budget and behind schedule anyway.
I wouldn't rule out the idea that the shape and look of the building has some effect. After all, the Scottish Parliament looks like a poorly constructed primary school and, sure enough...
Apologies for the mixed reply above! On StillWaters' point that, "If the sets are chosen on anything other than objective criteria that is very dangerous"...
OK, imagine if a teacher or school goes, "This kid has potential, but their family is poor, they don't have a good study environment at home, but they will do well if stretched, so I'm going to give them a place in the top set, and this other kid, who just made it into the top set because mummy and daddy paid for tons of extra tuition, they don't have the same potential, so I'll put them in the next set down."
Do you view that sort of decision as OK or as dangerous? It's based on objective criteria. We know these family and social factors, and paid tutoring, impact on pupils' performance on school exams. We can objectively assess them.
I'm all for determining entry to the school based on potential. That is key - because of the issue of spoonfeeding as you suggest.
But when you are looking at a specific teaching set, I don't think the same criteria apply because the sets should be reorganised every term so the impact of the decision is time bound.
Firstly the difference between the top set and the second set shouldn't be too wide - in fact they should overlap, with the second set teachers able and encouraged to stretch their outperformers.
Secondly, if someone is behind then either you are slowing down the whole set as a result of the teacher spending more time with them (thus disadvantaging everyone) plus you also have the risk of knocking the confidence of the laggard.
Better in my view for them to outperform in the second set and then move up to the top set on merit, rather than be pushed up early based on potential and bump along the bottom/hold back the other top performers
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
If the greased piglet that is Boris does “get away with it” on partygate and Keir Starmer gets an FPN would it be sneaky politics for Boris to publicly declare that SKS shouldn’t resign over the matter as clearly the rules were confusing - even to the point where a genius classicist and best PM ever was caught out.
If SKS took this lifeline then he’s slightly holed under the waterline, if he resigns Boris can say he was magnanimous and thought SKS was wrong, Boris looks a lot better etc.
I would think it’s maybe better for the Tories long term to have SKS in charge of Labour as any replacement might excite the public more.
"What exists — what people have created — is a system that allows certain favored people to position themselves as victims, and destroy those they have come to hate. Aside from the human tragedy here, think of the scientific discoveries that are now denied to us, because of this vengeful woman, and this vengeful, unjust system we have created — a system that is a Machine incapable of dealing with humanity, in all its complexity.
I have been hearing in private correspondence, and in this blog’s comments section, some people saying that they don’t recognize what America has become, and that they are exploring ways to leave. Others — I’m thinking of a friend who is a very well known academic — says that no matter what, he is staying to fight to the bitter end. The incredible thing is that we are having these conversations at all. I can do the work I do just fine here, for now, but if I were and up-and-coming Joshua Katz or David Sabatini, I would start looking to start my career in Europe or elsewhere abroad, where they aren’t as insane as Woke America has become.
And listen: the thing you see so clearly if you live any time abroad, as I have done in Hungary over the past year, is that America remains a cultural powerhouse, exporting our own insanity to the world. One of the reasons I strongly support Hungarian PM Viktor Orban is that he is not intimidated by any of it, and he understands the need to use what power he has as the country’s political leader to defy this insanity, and to prevent it from taking root in his country.
What I hope to see in our country is a Republican Party come to power on a platform of actively rolling back wokeness, institutionally and otherwise. Not just opposing it rhetorically, but using the power of the state to push it back, hard. No more Joshua Katzes. No more David Sabatinis. No more martyrs to this totalitarian ideology that is destroying our ability to live together as broken human beings."
I usually consider myself pretty anti-woke, but when I read this kind of shit it puts me right into the opposite camp. If you're prepared to dismantle democracy over trans-bathrooms, then maybe it's not woke that's the problem.
Just following up on this, because it makes me so angry. The rallying cry in this piece is "No more Joshua Katzes".
OK Fine. Joshua Katz lost a prestigious, but non-paying honorory position, at a private university for writing an unwoke article.
Lots of people have lost actual paying jobs at private Brigham Young University or at Liberty University for arguing that homosexuality should not be illegal.
Where is the cry about the stifling of debate when it is people expressing those views? If it's bad that Princetown said "no you can't have this position because you wrote this article", then it shold be just as bad when it is the other way around.
Freedom of speech is not just for those who agree with us.
I am not sure what is "Woke" about the Sabatini case. It reads to me to be a straightforward case of sexual harrassment. Or is refusing to tolerate sexual harrassment now "Woke"? If so what do the "anti-Woke" crowd want?
I would like everyone in science to read the painful, poignant description of what, exactly, Sabatini did to women under his mentorship. It should make you sick to your stomach. I don't think I could still be in science if I'd faced any of this. https://t.co/vJ5E7NWMEJ
The allegations about Russian soldiers conduct in Ukraine makes me sick to my stomach. Not this. It is a one sided list of allegations of inappropriate behaviour, put forward in a lawsuit by someone suing for damages for 'emotional distress' following a messy break up.
Our time would be better spent dealing with other, far more serious, things.
Sexual harrassment in the work place is not 'a messy break up'. A lot of the allegations in the paper are based upon the findings of the MIT investigation, they are not random stories.
It is perfectly possible to be both in favour of safe workplaces for women and against Russian war crimes.
Yes - but the MIT 'independent' investigation is alleged to be a sham, a biased kangaroo court. So the edifice is built on nothing. That, as I understand it, is Sabatini's defence. So actually, if you want to find out the truth, you would need to consider both sides- not just follow the zeitgeist.
As a general rule, those sanctioned by an investigation often question the process rather than accept their guilt. No one appeals when they are let off.
Either way, the Sabatini case is one of allegations of sexual harrassment in the work place, I don't see that as a "Woke" issue, so don't see his downfall as an issue of "Woke gone mad".
Do you think that is sufficiently serious to prevent him ever working again in his chosen career?
"What exists — what people have created — is a system that allows certain favored people to position themselves as victims, and destroy those they have come to hate. Aside from the human tragedy here, think of the scientific discoveries that are now denied to us, because of this vengeful woman, and this vengeful, unjust system we have created — a system that is a Machine incapable of dealing with humanity, in all its complexity.
I have been hearing in private correspondence, and in this blog’s comments section, some people saying that they don’t recognize what America has become, and that they are exploring ways to leave. Others — I’m thinking of a friend who is a very well known academic — says that no matter what, he is staying to fight to the bitter end. The incredible thing is that we are having these conversations at all. I can do the work I do just fine here, for now, but if I were and up-and-coming Joshua Katz or David Sabatini, I would start looking to start my career in Europe or elsewhere abroad, where they aren’t as insane as Woke America has become.
And listen: the thing you see so clearly if you live any time abroad, as I have done in Hungary over the past year, is that America remains a cultural powerhouse, exporting our own insanity to the world. One of the reasons I strongly support Hungarian PM Viktor Orban is that he is not intimidated by any of it, and he understands the need to use what power he has as the country’s political leader to defy this insanity, and to prevent it from taking root in his country.
What I hope to see in our country is a Republican Party come to power on a platform of actively rolling back wokeness, institutionally and otherwise. Not just opposing it rhetorically, but using the power of the state to push it back, hard. No more Joshua Katzes. No more David Sabatinis. No more martyrs to this totalitarian ideology that is destroying our ability to live together as broken human beings."
I usually consider myself pretty anti-woke, but when I read this kind of shit it puts me right into the opposite camp. If you're prepared to dismantle democracy over trans-bathrooms, then maybe it's not woke that's the problem.
Just following up on this, because it makes me so angry. The rallying cry in this piece is "No more Joshua Katzes".
OK Fine. Joshua Katz lost a prestigious, but non-paying honorory position, at a private university for writing an unwoke article.
Lots of people have lost actual paying jobs at private Brigham Young University or at Liberty University for arguing that homosexuality should not be illegal.
Where is the cry about the stifling of debate when it is people expressing those views? If it's bad that Princetown said "no you can't have this position because you wrote this article", then it shold be just as bad when it is the other way around.
Freedom of speech is not just for those who agree with us.
At least with Ukraine they can't cite Putin as the answer anymore. They are stuck with Victor Orban. Interestingly, Orban is a total mystery - no one serious has ever studied him. It seems all to be propoganda, one way or the other. I'm reading Fiona Hill's book about Putin, and its good that we have that. A fascinating read.
I would say that, as a general rule, the 'woke' stuff is just as bad as the insane right wing stuff - but the former is best understood as a response to the latter, which has been around for longer.
My children are going to a new (expensive) Los Angeles private school next term.
As with all private LA schools, they have a "diversity" officer, and if you want your children to be accepted, one has to turn up and listen to the various presentations.
I dreaded the diversity one, especially given all I had read (particularly from @Leon).
So... come the presentation, I was pleasantly surprised that the focus was not on white guilt for slavery but:
(1) We want diversity, so the school likes like the community, but that cannot be at the expense of academic excellence. If the top maths set is one colour and the bottom one another, that isn't promoting diversity, that's promoting tokenism.
(2) Diversity is not just about the colour of your skin. If you're on this call, you're already privileged. Your kids are privileged that you own a computer. They're privileged that you care enough about their education to sit through 100 presentations from 100 schools. Privilege manifests itself in many ways, and it is important that our kids understand how fortunate they are.
Hope it goes well. I've got a lot of respect for the people that actually deal with the Equality and Diversity Agenda, and try and make it work; filtering out the political ideology etc. That is not impossible but a very difficult task. It is certainly a fallacy to say 'it is all bad; all leftist / communist rubbish' etc.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
If as I expect Durham Plod once again say "this was not an offence" then there truly was nothing to see. No break of the law. And if I'm wrong then they quit and I say "I was wrong". And will cry laughing at the horrible mess Labour have put themselves in.
As for surety in legal cases, whilst you can believe your case is very strong there is always the potential that either your understanding of the law is wrong or the jury make a finding because they can, or judges can have lapses.
I assume that as a leading lawyer Starmer isn't going have done a "whoops I had no idea" like Bonzo. So we will see will we not.
To make it clear: you did not want this investigation. You argued against the investigation. You blame the investigation on it being 'politically untenable' for there not to be one.
You utterly ignore the fact that more evidence turned up (you could even argue that Labour lied); the same sort of evidence that cast doubt on what happened at No. 10. People drinking. People eating in an enclosed space, etc, etc.
It may be that it was all above board: then again, the fact that Starmer himself cannot say it was, shows that the entire event was a little too close to the line.
It’s Charlie’s Coffee and Brunch bar. By the harbour. I’ll get you an espresso
I am following your and Daughter's travel itineraries.
Any moment now I expect to find a picture of you both appearing in my WhatsApp ("Mum - I met someone else who reads PB for hours over a drink. Honestly you both need to get a life.").
Fantastic - we could see our first PB wedding, Leon and Cyclefree JR with Sean T as best man.
It’s Charlie’s Coffee and Brunch bar. By the harbour. I’ll get you an espresso
I am following your and Daughter's travel itineraries.
Any moment now I expect to find a picture of you both appearing in my WhatsApp ("Mum - I met someone else who reads PB for hours over a drink. Honestly you both need to get a life.").
Fantastic - we could see our first PB wedding, Leon and Cyclefree JR with Sean T as best man.
It’s Charlie’s Coffee and Brunch bar. By the harbour. I’ll get you an espresso
I am following your and Daughter's travel itineraries.
Any moment now I expect to find a picture of you both appearing in my WhatsApp ("Mum - I met someone else who reads PB for hours over a drink. Honestly you both need to get a life.").
Fantastic - we could see our first PB wedding, Leon and Cyclefree JR with Sean T as best man.
@Cyclefree is much more positive on the idea of her daughter meeting @Leon than she was when I suggested it a week ago!
Apologies for the mixed reply above! On StillWaters' point that, "If the sets are chosen on anything other than objective criteria that is very dangerous"...
OK, imagine if a teacher or school goes, "This kid has potential, but their family is poor, they don't have a good study environment at home, but they will do well if stretched, so I'm going to give them a place in the top set, and this other kid, who just made it into the top set because mummy and daddy paid for tons of extra tuition, they don't have the same potential, so I'll put them in the next set down."
Do you view that sort of decision as OK or as dangerous? It's based on objective criteria. We know these family and social factors, and paid tutoring, impact on pupils' performance on school exams. We can objectively assess them.
I'm all for determining entry to the school based on potential. That is key - because of the issue of spoonfeeding as you suggest.
But when you are looking at a specific teaching set, I don't think the same criteria apply because the sets should be reorganised every term so the impact of the decision is time bound.
Firstly the difference between the top set and the second set shouldn't be too wide - in fact they should overlap, with the second set teachers able and encouraged to stretch their outperformers.
Secondly, if someone is behind then either you are slowing down the whole set as a result of the teacher spending more time with them (thus disadvantaging everyone) plus you also have the risk of knocking the confidence of the laggard.
Better in my view for them to outperform in the second set and then move up to the top set on merit, rather than be pushed up early based on potential and bump along the bottom/hold back the other top performers
The child with potential who has been held back by circumstances may be less likely to slow down the whole set than the child who only got there because of private tuition.
There is a risk of knocking the confidence of the laggard, as you put it. There is also a risk of knocking someone's confidence by putting them in a lower set, and a chance that putting them in a higher set will give them the confidence they needed.
But we don't need to get deep into the weeds here. I'd leave details of such decisions to the professionals. If you agree that it's good to judge potential, not just performance to date, and that judging potential can include considering someone's circumstances, then we agree on the big stuff. I think that's all that was meant by the diversity training mentioned previously.
No Australian PM has won two elections in a row since 2004. Parties have, but they've changed the leader just before the election.
Indeed, if Scott Morrison manages it today then he will join John Howard and Bob Hawke as the only 2 Australian PMs to win more than 1 general election in the last 40 years.
Labor start as favourites but looks like both parties are leaking votes to Independents while Labor also leaking them to the Greens
I already feel sick to the pit of my guts. Look at the leads and momentum Labor had just back in February!
Maybe I just hated Morrison because my mum loves him so much, and he’s actually very good.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I still maintain that many of these politicians must be secretly hoping that the place will ultimately burn down. They'd then be armed with an excuse for spending money on a shiny, modern replacement.
Itd make more sense. They made a decision, now have reopened and seemingly deferred it (things seem to have progressed bigger all in years) and whilst arguing about moving out was bound to happen (even though it'll be much quicker and cheaper), they wont even agree to the eminently sensible option of moving some of them across the street, which would also surely be quicker and cheaper, or elsewhere nearby.
The whole thing makes me spitting mad.
It makes no sense to do anything other than have them all move out. Rent the QEII centre and set up something there for a couple of years. Re-purpose any empty space in Whitehall as offices.
Why does it even need to exist? The MPs could have shit offices above a Ladbrokes in their constiuencies, debate on Zoom and vote on an app. I don't think we'd be conspicuously less well governed if that were the arrangement,
That's 75-80% true, tbh. About the same as any other desk-based organisation considering going totally online/wfh. You'd miss out on informal discussions, which are sometimes very important (but uusally not) and in practice a lot of the discussions nowadays seem to be on WhatsApp. So...yeah. Probably the public isn't ready for it, but in 20 years I can see it happening.
No Australian PM has won two elections in a row since 2004. Parties have, but they've changed the leader just before the election.
Indeed, if Scott Morrison manages it today then he will join John Howard and Bob Hawke as the only 2 Australian PMs to win more than 1 general election in the last 40 years.
Labor start as favourites but looks like both parties are leaking votes to Independents while Labor also leaking them to the Greens
I already feel sick to the pit of my guts. Look at the leads and momentum Labor had just back in February!
Maybe I just hated Morrison because my mum loves him so much, and he’s actually very good.
A 53/47 TPP lead for ALP would be a stunning victory. 55/45 would be among the biggest ever electoral successes achieved.
Although it can't possibly be exactly accurate it may be worth noticing that according to a recent list of top world universities, the top one within the EU is ranked 44th, and there are no fewer than 7 UK ones above it, including an obscure one in second place and a quite good one in joint third. Is there a link between this league table and the Guardian story?
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
So far the Coalition are ahead in 4 Labor held seats, Labor are ahead in 2 Coalition held seats and Independents are ahead in 1 Coalition held seat, all others unchanged. Still early days
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
Policy has changed. We have gone from encouraging meritocracy, business, hard work, education to favour asset inflation, gerontocracy and protecting inheritances.
The people doing this like to pretend nothing has changed so they can use culture wedge issues to get the votes of those left behind.
So far the Coalition are ahead in 4 Labor held seats, Labor are ahead in 2 Coalition held seats and Independents are ahead in 1 Coalition held seat, all others unchanged. Still early days
I'm ignorant of the process in Australia. In America or the UK the percentage so far can be swayed by which areas/ballot boxes are counted first. Is this also true in Australia or are all the ballots brought together and counted as one.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
What change have you suggested then as far as I can see absolutely nothing apart from more of the same. I put my money where my mouth was and said what I would change. If you aren't as you claim just advocating carrying on specify what you would change to make things work for the bottom 50%
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
Policy has changed. We have gone from encouraging meritocracy, business, hard work, education to favour asset inflation, gerontocracy and protecting inheritances.
The people doing this like to pretend nothing has changed so they can use culture wedge issues to get the votes of those left behind.
we have had all those for 40 to 50 years how does it invalidate what I said?
So far the Coalition are ahead in 4 Labor held seats, Labor are ahead in 2 Coalition held seats and Independents are ahead in 1 Coalition held seat, all others unchanged. Still early days
I'm ignorant of the process in Australia. In America or the UK the percentage so far can be swayed by which areas/ballot boxes are counted first. Is this also true in Australia or are all the ballots brought together and counted as one.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
What change have you suggested then as far as I can see absolutely nothing apart from more of the same. I put my money where my mouth was and said what I would change. If you aren't as you claim just advocating carrying on specify what you would change to make things work for the bottom 50%
A simple policy change that does not come from left or right that would help a lot:
2 hrs taught activity each week paid for by the state for everyone, regardless of age, with a wide range of choices from gym, personal finance, fitness, cooking, nutrition, dance, mental health, parenting.
So far the Coalition are ahead in 4 Labor held seats, Labor are ahead in 2 Coalition held seats and Independents are ahead in 1 Coalition held seat, all others unchanged. Still early days
I'm ignorant of the process in Australia. In America or the UK the percentage so far can be swayed by which areas/ballot boxes are counted first. Is this also true in Australia or are all the ballots brought together and counted as one.
Depends a bit on when polls close. So far we have results coming in from NSW, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and ACT. Awaiting results from South Australia, Western Australia and Northern Territory.
With 1% of the vote in the Coalition vote is down 3.1%, Labor's vote is down 3.2% and Independents are up 5%.
The Coalition lead in 51 seats, Labor in 33 and Independents in 5 and Katter in 1
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
Policy has changed. We have gone from encouraging meritocracy, business, hard work, education to favour asset inflation, gerontocracy and protecting inheritances.
The people doing this like to pretend nothing has changed so they can use culture wedge issues to get the votes of those left behind.
we have had all those for 40 to 50 years how does it invalidate what I said?
I think there was a big change around the turn of the millenium which accelerated after the financial crash, where the emphasis shifted sharply away from opportunity, business to a more protectionist attitude which benefited older asset owners at the expense of younger workers.
I do not accept that this has been the status quo for 40-50 years at all. The shift is relatively recent, mostly down to demographics.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
What change have you suggested then as far as I can see absolutely nothing apart from more of the same. I put my money where my mouth was and said what I would change. If you aren't as you claim just advocating carrying on specify what you would change to make things work for the bottom 50%
A simple policy change that does not come from left or right that would help a lot:
2 hrs taught activity each week paid for by the state for everyone, regardless of age, with a wide range of choices from gym, personal finance, fitness, cooking, nutrition, dance, mental health, parenting.
I dont care where the idea comes from and all you are doing here is advocating taking more money off people to pay for useless shit how does that help?
You want to learn to cook or how to do personal finance, or learn about nutrition....there is a metric fuckton of free courses for all those on youtube yet despite that you want the governement to spend money producing things which will probably be lesser quality. See thats the issue people like you that thinks if it doesn't come from the state its worthless
So far the Coalition are ahead in 4 Labor held seats, Labor are ahead in 2 Coalition held seats and Independents are ahead in 1 Coalition held seat, all others unchanged. Still early days
I'm ignorant of the process in Australia. In America or the UK the percentage so far can be swayed by which areas/ballot boxes are counted first. Is this also true in Australia or are all the ballots brought together and counted as one.
Counted at polling booths in Australia.
Cheers. So I am guessing that it is generally pretty random but I assume that rural areas will have smaller polling stations than urban ones and therefore report quicker giving an early bias to rural votes in results so far. But I have assumed that with zippo knowledge and it might be urban ones are more efficient. I haven't a clue. Anyone here know?
Although it can't possibly be exactly accurate it may be worth noticing that according to a recent list of top world universities, the top one within the EU is ranked 44th, and there are no fewer than 7 UK ones above it, including an obscure one in second place and a quite good one in joint third. Is there a link between this league table and the Guardian story?
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
What change have you suggested then as far as I can see absolutely nothing apart from more of the same. I put my money where my mouth was and said what I would change. If you aren't as you claim just advocating carrying on specify what you would change to make things work for the bottom 50%
A simple policy change that does not come from left or right that would help a lot:
2 hrs taught activity each week paid for by the state for everyone, regardless of age, with a wide range of choices from gym, personal finance, fitness, cooking, nutrition, dance, mental health, parenting.
I dont care where the idea comes from and all you are doing here is advocating taking more money off people to pay for useless shit how does that help?
You want to learn to cook or how to do personal finance, or learn about nutrition....there is a metric fuckton of free courses for all those on youtube yet despite that you want the governement to spend money producing things which will probably be lesser quality. See thats the issue people like you that thinks if it doesn't come from the state its worthless
No, I just realise that if we have better parenting and fitter people we will be happier. That is a much better investment than things that look much better in GDP figures etc, although those will benefit in the long run too as healthier and happier people are more productive workers too.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
Policy has changed. We have gone from encouraging meritocracy, business, hard work, education to favour asset inflation, gerontocracy and protecting inheritances.
The people doing this like to pretend nothing has changed so they can use culture wedge issues to get the votes of those left behind.
There is another factor that increases inequality: assortative mating by class combined with women in the workplace.
In the old days, dad went to work and mum stayed at home. Now, both work. So far, so meh. But upper middle class professionals earn more and because they also tend to partner within their own class, there can be a gaping chasm in *household* income between professional couples and average earning couples (and by definition, a couple even on average earnings brings home twice as much as a one-adult household on average income).
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
What change have you suggested then as far as I can see absolutely nothing apart from more of the same. I put my money where my mouth was and said what I would change. If you aren't as you claim just advocating carrying on specify what you would change to make things work for the bottom 50%
A simple policy change that does not come from left or right that would help a lot:
2 hrs taught activity each week paid for by the state for everyone, regardless of age, with a wide range of choices from gym, personal finance, fitness, cooking, nutrition, dance, mental health, parenting.
I dont care where the idea comes from and all you are doing here is advocating taking more money off people to pay for useless shit how does that help?
You want to learn to cook or how to do personal finance, or learn about nutrition....there is a metric fuckton of free courses for all those on youtube yet despite that you want the governement to spend money producing things which will probably be lesser quality. See thats the issue people like you that thinks if it doesn't come from the state its worthless
No, I just realise that if we have better parenting and fitter people we will be happier. That is a much better investment than things that look much better in GDP figures etc, although those will benefit in the long run too as healthier and happier people are more productive workers too.
Those things are already available to them on youtube. What makes you think they are going to pay anymore attention if its a governement funded video. I also suspect a civil service video how how to boil an egg would cost 100 times what someone did off their own backs because the civil serice is nothing but spendthrift wastrels
Two party > Independent swing (all sorts of indepedents) Coalition (particularly Lib) losing more votes than ALP
Neither challenges the polling, i.e. a swing to ALP of a size TBD.
Yes it does, the current Coalition to ALP swing is less than 1% on the primary vote, most of the polls were suggesting an up to 4% swing
I'm drawing my error bars pretty wide here, Hyfud. But I take your point, the more extreme results seem less likely, but people were almost pricing in the polls being wrong like last time, which is why ALP is still 1/2 to provide the PM.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
Policy has changed. We have gone from encouraging meritocracy, business, hard work, education to favour asset inflation, gerontocracy and protecting inheritances.
The people doing this like to pretend nothing has changed so they can use culture wedge issues to get the votes of those left behind.
we have had all those for 40 to 50 years how does it invalidate what I said?
I think there was a big change around the turn of the millenium which accelerated after the financial crash, where the emphasis shifted sharply away from opportunity, business to a more protectionist attitude which benefited older asset owners at the expense of younger workers.
I do not accept that this has been the status quo for 40-50 years at all. The shift is relatively recent, mostly down to demographics.
Yes high asset prices and low wages benefit the conservative grey core vote greatly, hence the massive difference in voting patterns In the 80s the tories actually got a lot of votes from the young
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
What change have you suggested then as far as I can see absolutely nothing apart from more of the same. I put my money where my mouth was and said what I would change. If you aren't as you claim just advocating carrying on specify what you would change to make things work for the bottom 50%
A simple policy change that does not come from left or right that would help a lot:
2 hrs taught activity each week paid for by the state for everyone, regardless of age, with a wide range of choices from gym, personal finance, fitness, cooking, nutrition, dance, mental health, parenting.
I dont care where the idea comes from and all you are doing here is advocating taking more money off people to pay for useless shit how does that help?
You want to learn to cook or how to do personal finance, or learn about nutrition....there is a metric fuckton of free courses for all those on youtube yet despite that you want the governement to spend money producing things which will probably be lesser quality. See thats the issue people like you that thinks if it doesn't come from the state its worthless
No, I just realise that if we have better parenting and fitter people we will be happier. That is a much better investment than things that look much better in GDP figures etc, although those will benefit in the long run too as healthier and happier people are more productive workers too.
Those things are already available to them on youtube. What makes you think they are going to pay anymore attention if its a governement funded video. I also suspect a civil service video how how to boil an egg would cost 100 times what someone did off their own backs because the civil serice is nothing but spendthrift wastrels
Meeting in person rather than youtube is a core part of what I am suggesting. Lots of very lonely people, especially older people would benefit significantly and it can be part of restoring a shared sense of community.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
I don't want to carry on with the same old same old. I don't want to copy Thatcherism, New Labour and austerity. I don't want to keep on doing what we are doing.
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
What change have you suggested then as far as I can see absolutely nothing apart from more of the same. I put my money where my mouth was and said what I would change. If you aren't as you claim just advocating carrying on specify what you would change to make things work for the bottom 50%
A simple policy change that does not come from left or right that would help a lot:
2 hrs taught activity each week paid for by the state for everyone, regardless of age, with a wide range of choices from gym, personal finance, fitness, cooking, nutrition, dance, mental health, parenting.
I dont care where the idea comes from and all you are doing here is advocating taking more money off people to pay for useless shit how does that help?
You want to learn to cook or how to do personal finance, or learn about nutrition....there is a metric fuckton of free courses for all those on youtube yet despite that you want the governement to spend money producing things which will probably be lesser quality. See thats the issue people like you that thinks if it doesn't come from the state its worthless
No, I just realise that if we have better parenting and fitter people we will be happier. That is a much better investment than things that look much better in GDP figures etc, although those will benefit in the long run too as healthier and happier people are more productive workers too.
Those things are already available to them on youtube. What makes you think they are going to pay anymore attention if its a governement funded video. I also suspect a civil service video how how to boil an egg would cost 100 times what someone did off their own backs because the civil serice is nothing but spendthrift wastrels
Meeting in person rather than youtube is a core part of what I am suggesting. Lots of very lonely people, especially older people would benefit significantly and it can be part of restoring a shared sense of community.
So you would spend a lot of money on courses no one attends because hello most people prefer to do things online these days apart from the fossils. Of course if you want to teach better parenting to the over 70's go ahead just finance it with your cash not mine
Two party > Independent swing (all sorts of indepedents) Coalition (particularly Lib) losing more votes than ALP
Neither challenges the polling, i.e. a swing to ALP of a size TBD.
Yes it does, the current Coalition to ALP swing is less than 1% on the primary vote, most of the polls were suggesting an up to 4% swing
I'm drawing my error bars pretty wide here, Hyfud. But I take your point, the more extreme results seem less likely, but people were almost pricing in the polls being wrong like last time, which is why ALP is still 1/2 to provide the PM.
Currently though the Coalition are ahead in 5 Labor marginal seats while Labor are ahead in 8 Coalition marginal seats.
On those figures would end up Coalition 72 and Labor 70 so close and looks like a hung parliament.
Independents ahead though in Coalition held affluent Wentworth, Turnbull's old seat and Mackellar and Kooyang and Labor held Fowler
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
I'm with @Mexicanpete. This has been a total establishment stitch-up to save the PM.
Irrespective of who's to blame, this is likely to be more disruptive to UK science than it is to the EU, though it's not good for either.
For EU science, it's disruptive. For UK science, especially outside of Oxbridge, it's existential. People might not care about this. They might think that, so long as Oxbridge endure, UK science will still be the fine tuned, world beating machine it is. Australia hollowed out their 'middle' science, with the idea they could identify excellence and, selectively boost that. So far, it seemed, they were wrong. Upper-middle and middle universities represent a huge stream of research activity, one that can't be easily replaced.
Two party > Independent swing (all sorts of indepedents) Coalition (particularly Lib) losing more votes than ALP
Neither challenges the polling, i.e. a swing to ALP of a size TBD.
Yes it does, the current Coalition to ALP swing is less than 1% on the primary vote, most of the polls were suggesting an up to 4% swing
I'm drawing my error bars pretty wide here, Hyfud. But I take your point, the more extreme results seem less likely, but people were almost pricing in the polls being wrong like last time, which is why ALP is still 1/2 to provide the PM.
Currently though the Coalition are ahead in 5 Labor marginal seats while Labor are ahead in 8 Coalition marginal seats.
On those figures would end up Coalition 72 and Labor 70 so close and looks like a hung parliament.
Independents ahead though in Coalition held affluent Wentworth, Turnbull's old seat and Mackellar and Kooyang and Labor held Fowler
Apparently Turnbull didn't even go to Wentworth.
I do think the Coalition's best chance involves losing votes in safe seats and picking them up where it matters more.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
I've put a couple of quid on "no overall majority" in Australia - real surge for Greens and minor parties. Does amnyone who knows Oz better know what the realistic max is for the Greens?
I still maintain that many of these politicians must be secretly hoping that the place will ultimately burn down. They'd then be armed with an excuse for spending money on a shiny, modern replacement.
Itd make more sense. They made a decision, now have reopened and seemingly deferred it (things seem to have progressed bigger all in years) and whilst arguing about moving out was bound to happen (even though it'll be much quicker and cheaper), they wont even agree to the eminently sensible option of moving some of them across the street, which would also surely be quicker and cheaper, or elsewhere nearby.
The whole thing makes me spitting mad.
It makes no sense to do anything other than have them all move out. Rent the QEII centre and set up something there for a couple of years. Re-purpose any empty space in Whitehall as offices.
Why does it even need to exist? The MPs could have shit offices above a Ladbrokes in their constiuencies, debate on Zoom and vote on an app. I don't think we'd be conspicuously less well governed if that were the arrangement,
They can't molest each other so easily. That's another advantage. And as for subsidised food, just give them £10- Luncheon Vouchers or the equivalent in M&S tokens.
Irrespective of who's to blame, this is likely to be more disruptive to UK science than it is to the EU, though it's not good for either.
For EU science, it's disruptive. For UK science, especially outside of Oxbridge, it's existential. People might not care about this. They might think that, so long as Oxbridge endure, UK science will still be the fine tuned, world beating machine it is. Australia hollowed out their 'middle' science, with the idea they could identify excellence and, selectively boost that. So far, it seemed, they were wrong. Upper-middle and middle universities represent a huge stream of research activity, one that can't be easily replaced.
And one from which the high fliers of the not very distant future come and often remain. One thinks of Alec Jeffreys.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
I am more interested to know how issuing a few questionnaires and FPNs and looking at a few photos could take up a sufficient amount of staff time to cost £460,000.
They didn't even investigate properly, and most of the work had been done for them by Gray, so how on Earth could it come to that figure? That's the equivalent of hiring four full-time officers for a year.
Opinion polls are not always wrong, but when they are wrong, they are nearly always wrong in the same direction.
Hmm. Otoh we also have 538's Nate Silver telling us that when conventional wisdom tries to outguess the polls, it almost always guesses in the wrong direction.
So between the two of them, we might as well give up and go home, or just back the outsider and hope.
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
Policy has changed. We have gone from encouraging meritocracy, business, hard work, education to favour asset inflation, gerontocracy and protecting inheritances.
The people doing this like to pretend nothing has changed so they can use culture wedge issues to get the votes of those left behind.
we have had all those for 40 to 50 years how does it invalidate what I said?
The policy of the "Conservative" Party has changed on a much shorter timescale. Massively.
I've put a couple of quid on "no overall majority" in Australia - real surge for Greens and minor parties. Does amnyone who knows Oz better know what the realistic max is for the Greens?
It’s an interesting question, and the way this ends up being reported is going to have an outsized effect. This election is one of the great global proxy wars. Coalition win gives succour to the American coal lobby and climate contrarianism. Coalition loss, and a notable surge for greens, and the acceleration towards net zero continues, in the West at least.
Funny how climate change as a culture war battle only seems to have real salience these days in Australia. The US seems to have moved on from the climate wars of the 2010s to Covid vaccinations, critical race theory and abortion while the UK stews in its own juices over the definition of a woman.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
I am more interested to know how issuing a few questionnaires and FPNs and looking at a few photos could take up a sufficient amount of staff time to cost £460,000.
They didn't even investigate properly, and most of the work had been done for them by Gray, so how on Earth could it come to that figure? That's the equivalent of hiring four full-time officers for a year.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
I am more interested to know how issuing a few questionnaires and FPNs and looking at a few photos could take up a sufficient amount of staff time to cost £460,000.
They didn't even investigate properly, and most of the work had been done for them by Gray, so how on Earth could it come to that figure? That's the equivalent of hiring four full-time officers for a year.
Have you allowed for the overheads bit - to cover everything from the upkeep of NSY to pensions?
I wouldn't be surprised if they charged VAT as well (the rules on such things can be very odd, vide state schools).
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
The fact that Brexit was being promoted by precisely the same people (Thatcherite ideologues backed by footloose capital) who had engineered the whole rich get richer while everyone else struggles shenanigans in the first place didn't seem to register with people.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
I am more interested to know how issuing a few questionnaires and FPNs and looking at a few photos could take up a sufficient amount of staff time to cost £460,000.
They didn't even investigate properly, and most of the work had been done for them by Gray, so how on Earth could it come to that figure? That's the equivalent of hiring four full-time officers for a year.
Or 20 coppers for a fifth of a year, which is closer to the mark. What it really shows is all these numbers are stupid anyway as they neglect standing costs. The police would have to be paid anyway. It is not as if the Met spent £460,000 on hiring private jets, which might be a genuine cost.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
I'm with @Mexicanpete. This has been a total establishment stitch-up to save the PM.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
I am more interested to know how issuing a few questionnaires and FPNs and looking at a few photos could take up a sufficient amount of staff time to cost £460,000.
They didn't even investigate properly, and most of the work had been done for them by Gray, so how on Earth could it come to that figure? That's the equivalent of hiring four full-time officers for a year.
Or 20 coppers for a fifth of a year, which is closer to the mark. What it really shows is all these numbers are stupid anyway as they neglect standing costs. The police would have to be paid anyway. It is not as if the Met spent £460,000 on hiring private jets, which might be a genuine cost.
A massive waste of police time nonetheless, whether in London or Durham.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
So hearsay and rumour. Ok.
But if they didn’t expect the Gray report to be hijacked they are too naive to be in Downing Street.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
I am more interested to know how issuing a few questionnaires and FPNs and looking at a few photos could take up a sufficient amount of staff time to cost £460,000.
They didn't even investigate properly, and most of the work had been done for them by Gray, so how on Earth could it come to that figure? That's the equivalent of hiring four full-time officers for a year.
12 officers for three months. Sounds about right.
As a tax payer I would have been happy to personally pay the postage to send Johnson the three questionnaires the Met inadvertently forgot to send him.
Andrew Bridgen has now declared Johnson has been given a clean bill of health, so all is good.
"The police must investigate No. 10 parties!" - The parties are investigated and BJ and others get fined. "Look at the good job the police did! And there's more to come!" - The police don't issue more fines to BJ, but others do get them. "The police have done a horrid job! The top people have got away with it!"
Perhaps the underlings who got done are not a victim of some stitch-up by No. 10 and the police, but victims of the get-Boris campaign?
Then add in Beergate: "The police have investigated! There's nothing to see here! It's all a put-up job by the Mail!" - It turns out that the Labour Party had lied. "Why does it matter? The police investigated?" - More evidence comes out. "Why does it matter? The police investigated? And the Mail's awful!" - The investigation is reopened. "It's a waste of police time to investigate this!"
etc, etc.
You do know that is quite literally the Wail's position reversed. Attacks Labour's push on this - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON. Then 10 days of stories piling pressure on the police to do Starmer - one front page literally being TORY PRESSURE TO MAKE THE POLICE ACT. Then Starmer says "I'll quit" and they complain he's trying to pressure the police, then when newss breaks about the Met whitewhash its "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY".
So you are right, but you're talking about the Tories.
Remember there is a very clear difference between the two sides. We have reams of evidence about Boris and Number 10 breaking the law over and over and over. She prepares a brutal report. Someone leans on the Met to provide cover. Which they do. With a narrow field of investigation. So that now the Gray report will come out and tear Number 10 apart the police have already found Him innocent by simply not investigating the hideous reportage and photos we're about to get. The establishment always looks after its own - if you are a civil servant with a gong you get protected whilst all your staff carry the can.#
If you want to gloat feel free. Not a good luck for the pro-establishment party as people starve.
I don't care if it's the Mail's position, or the opposite of it.
You were in denial over Beergate. I have no idea if Starmer or anyone else there will get a fine - the law appears to be so poorly written that pretty much anything could result. But it was clear the moment that it turned out that Labour had not told the truth about who had been there that the police investigation had not been thorough.
it would be good for you to be consistent.
I am being consistent. There was a prime fascie case against Johnson which the Met now appear to have investigated primarily to sweep under the carpet. There was not one against Starmer, and the "evidence" was not sufficient to suggest the law had been broken.
That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate.
I still think there is nothing to see and expect nobody to get fined. Buit if I'm wrong they fall on their sword and leave the stage. Which is more than can be said for Bonzo and his Clown Car circus. We're going to get the Gray report. Reams of it. Photos and all. And people like you will say "nothing to see here" for the various events the Met haven't even investigated because no fines have been issued.
I'm quite happy with the consistency of my position. Which on all things is apply the rules equally.
I'm actually going to reply again and say that some of the stuff you've written above is rubbish.
"That Durham plod are now reinvestigating is as much because it became politically untenable for them not to do so as because there is anything to investigate."
Yeah, right. Even Starmer himself cannot say for sure whether he broke the law or not. I am therefore unsure how you can say there is nothing to investigate. Are you a bigger-brained lawyer than Starmer?
"And people like you will say "nothing to see here" "
LOL. No. *You* are the one saying 'nothing to see here' about Durham. See above.
RP is consistent here.
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
On what basis have you determined the police didn’t do their job? That you didn’t like the outcome?
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
The Met have confirmed that of the 5 events Johnson was known to have attended the police only investigated him personally for two (questionnaires issued for just the two events) including the cake event, which handily brought down Sunak.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
Sounds like the conspiracy theorists are out in force. Next we will have Big Dog saved by an unholy cabal of the Police, Freemasons and MI5
I know people regard me as an angry voice and yes I am here far more than I would like to be. But the argument I am having with @bondegezou is symptomatic.
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
The fact that Brexit was being promoted by precisely the same people (Thatcherite ideologues backed by footloose capital) who had engineered the whole rich get richer while everyone else struggles shenanigans in the first place didn't seem to register with people.
Doesnt matter who was promoting it the fact was while in the eu the bottom half of the country had been sliding into poverty further and further....the argument to keep on as were doing therefore really didnt appeal to them because all that offered them was a continued slide into greater and greater poverty. You can certainly argue that it won't help but then staying in the eu wasn't going to help either so they rolled the dice and took a gamble that just maybe it would and for quite a few it has. People who are actually seeing payrises now whereas before they were condemned to minimum wage for the forseeable future. Oh yes forgot you are a left winger and the only good wage rises for the proles are those they get by hiking minimum wage
I still maintain that many of these politicians must be secretly hoping that the place will ultimately burn down. They'd then be armed with an excuse for spending money on a shiny, modern replacement.
Itd make more sense. They made a decision, now have reopened and seemingly deferred it (things seem to have progressed bigger all in years) and whilst arguing about moving out was bound to happen (even though it'll be much quicker and cheaper), they wont even agree to the eminently sensible option of moving some of them across the street, which would also surely be quicker and cheaper, or elsewhere nearby.
The whole thing makes me spitting mad.
It makes no sense to do anything other than have them all move out. Rent the QEII centre and set up something there for a couple of years. Re-purpose any empty space in Whitehall as offices.
Why does it even need to exist? The MPs could have shit offices above a Ladbrokes in their constiuencies, debate on Zoom and vote on an app. I don't think we'd be conspicuously less well governed if that were the arrangement,
They can't molest each other so easily. That's another advantage. And as for subsidised food, just give them £10- Luncheon Vouchers or the equivalent in M&S tokens.
I am sure @NickPalmer would have a view, but in my experience the ability of an MP to chat to a minister in the lobby is a very valuable informal channel to ensure their constituents are looked after
Comments
My latest insight, with the trans issue, is don't call anyone Mr or Mrs x. Just call them by their first name. The repurcussions of not calling someone by their proper title, even in a supposedly formal setting, are far less significant than that which may arise through misgendering them.
I think we should all try and avoid sexism, racism, ageism etc - even though it is rooted very deeply within our psychology. But the idea that we can ultimately avoid offence is laughably utopian, because it will always reconstruct itself in some way.
Imagine a default. The government is going to be reluctant to let some hedge fund seize the mother of parliaments... and then what is your alternative use?
As for surety in legal cases, whilst you can believe your case is very strong there is always the potential that either your understanding of the law is wrong or the jury make a finding because they can, or judges can have lapses.
I assume that as a leading lawyer Starmer isn't going have done a "whoops I had no idea" like Bonzo. So we will see will we not.
I have been waiting for weeks for you to post on the various stories about the possibility that Homo floresiensis may still be alive today. I thought this was right down your street. Although it is almost certainly not true the idea has been reported upon seriously, even if skeptically.
Any moment now I expect to find a picture of you both appearing in my WhatsApp ("Mum - I met someone else who reads PB for hours over a drink. Honestly you both need to get a life.").
But when you are looking at a specific teaching set, I don't think the same criteria apply because the sets should be reorganised every term so the impact of the decision is time bound.
Firstly the difference between the top set and the second set shouldn't be too wide - in fact they should overlap, with the second set teachers able and encouraged to stretch their outperformers.
Secondly, if someone is behind then either you are slowing down the whole set as a result of the teacher spending more time with them (thus disadvantaging everyone) plus you also have the risk of knocking the confidence of the laggard.
Better in my view for them to outperform in the second set and then move up to the top set on merit, rather than be pushed up early based on potential and bump along the bottom/hold back the other top performers
If SKS took this lifeline then he’s slightly holed under the waterline, if he resigns Boris can say he was magnanimous and thought SKS was wrong, Boris looks a lot better etc.
I would think it’s maybe better for the Tories long term to have SKS in charge of Labour as any replacement might excite the public more.
I've got a lot of respect for the people that actually deal with the Equality and Diversity Agenda, and try and make it work; filtering out the political ideology etc. That is not impossible but a very difficult task. It is certainly a fallacy to say 'it is all bad; all leftist / communist rubbish' etc.
Independents up 11.8% and One Nation up 5% and Greens up 1%
https://www.pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/
You utterly ignore the fact that more evidence turned up (you could even argue that Labour lied); the same sort of evidence that cast doubt on what happened at No. 10. People drinking. People eating in an enclosed space, etc, etc.
It may be that it was all above board: then again, the fact that Starmer himself cannot say it was, shows that the entire event was a little too close to the line.
It's all rather funny.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-03/abc-news-channel-stream/167392
But nice link thank you.
There is a risk of knocking the confidence of the laggard, as you put it. There is also a risk of knocking someone's confidence by putting them in a lower set, and a chance that putting them in a higher set will give them the confidence they needed.
But we don't need to get deep into the weeds here. I'd leave details of such decisions to the professionals. If you agree that it's good to judge potential, not just performance to date, and that judging potential can include considering someone's circumstances, then we agree on the big stuff. I think that's all that was meant by the diversity training mentioned previously.
Maybe I just hated Morrison because my mum loves him so much, and he’s actually very good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTiJkg1voo&ab_channel=ABCNews(Australia)
A 2.5% swing would give a hung parliament and Coalition 73 and Labor 72 seats but very early days
Simply put 40 to 50 years ago a household could live on the wage of one earner. Policy really hasnt changed that much over that time and now its common for households with 2 full time earners to be struggling. The argument from people like him is oh we need to keep on doing what we are doing, this was also the argument for remaining.
Sadly for most people in this country what we are doing really isnt working for them and year by year they feel poorer and poorer and struggle more and more while the upper echelons of society seem to get richer and richer.
Things need to change, the brexit vote was a result of this, my diatribe about doing essentials is part of this. Will they work? I really have no idea. However for a lot of this country just carrying on with the same old same old is not an option as all they see from past experience is they will slowly have less and less.
https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/choosing-university/worlds-top-100-universities
I believe Starmer and Rayner probably broke the letter of the law, and if the law is applied with rigour they must go simply because they said they would. Richard Holden and the Daily Mail and Telegraph railroaded Durham Constabulary into a highly politicised investigation. Based on how they dealt with Cummings the precedent had been set to walk away.
Johnson personally drove a coach and horses through the rules. The Met launched a token case against him. It now transpires that they didn't even look at his more egregious breaches, they ignored the Abba night at number 10! And Case they ignored completely. Mainly Juniors and Women were fined. Cressida Dick's last hurrah was another operational failure.
The Met intervention rather than allowing justice to be served has allowed Johnson to dodge the Gray Report and remain in office. It has worked out so well for him, it looks very like a conspiratorial whitewash. Even his greatest foe in Government was brought down by a cake!
Tory hacks are laughing and they will laugh louder when Starmer gets his Beergate comeuppance. The reality is Team Johnson has taken the rest of us for a ride. And what about his clandestine meeting with Sue Gray last month...?
https://www.pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/
But just because change is needed doesn't mean any change is a good idea. I don't see radical libertarianism as the answer. I don't think Brexit has helped the struggling full time earning couple.
It's not the state spending outside of your core functions that has put us in this situation. It's a failure to invest in housing. It's a broader abandonment of Keynesian principles. It's unfettered capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs.
Things should change. Saying private money will look after the roads and we shouldn't pay for any post-18 education is not the change we need.
The people doing this like to pretend nothing has changed so they can use culture wedge issues to get the votes of those left behind.
2 hrs taught activity each week paid for by the state for everyone, regardless of age, with a wide range of choices from gym, personal finance, fitness, cooking, nutrition, dance, mental health, parenting.
With 1% of the vote in the Coalition vote is down 3.1%, Labor's vote is down 3.2% and Independents are up 5%.
The Coalition lead in 51 seats, Labor in 33 and Independents in 5 and Katter in 1
https://www.pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/
I do not accept that this has been the status quo for 40-50 years at all. The shift is relatively recent, mostly down to demographics.
You want to learn to cook or how to do personal finance, or learn about nutrition....there is a metric fuckton of free courses for all those on youtube yet despite that you want the governement to spend money producing things which will probably be lesser quality. See thats the issue people like you that thinks if it doesn't come from the state its worthless
Coalition 37% Labor 30%, Greens 12%, Others 10%, One Nation 5%
Two party > Independent swing (all sorts of indepedents)
Coalition (particularly Lib) losing more votes than ALP
Neither challenges the polling, i.e. a swing to ALP of a size TBD.
https://www.pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/
AIUI all we know about the ABBA event is that the Met didn’t recommend any FPNs. We don’t know that they ignored it?
In the old days, dad went to work and mum stayed at home. Now, both work. So far, so meh. But upper middle class professionals earn more and because they also tend to partner within their own class, there can be a gaping chasm in *household* income between professional couples and average earning couples (and by definition, a couple even on average earnings brings home twice as much as a one-adult household on average income).
Kellner's Law getting ready to roar?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.159045690
On those figures would end up Coalition 72 and Labor 70 so close and looks like a hung parliament.
Independents ahead though in Coalition held affluent Wentworth, Turnbull's old seat and Mackellar and Kooyang and Labor held Fowler
It stinks to high heaven.
I do think the Coalition's best chance involves losing votes in safe seats and picking them up where it matters more.
Reports are that Juniors were obliging to Gray whereas Seniors and some politicians in general were not. I suspect Sunak was truthful.They did not expect the Gray Report to be hijacked and used as evidence for the prosecution.
I personally think that Johnson not being investigated is remarkable, but Case, with the evidence we have seen ourselves not getting an FPN is astonishing.
Big Dog is saved...by the less than lamented Cressida Dick!
Named after Peter Kellner:
Opinion polls are not always wrong, but when they are wrong, they are nearly always wrong in the same direction.
https://www.pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/
They didn't even investigate properly, and most of the work had been done for them by Gray, so how on Earth could it come to that figure? That's the equivalent of hiring four full-time officers for a year.
So between the two of them, we might as well give up and go home, or just back the outsider and hope.
Funny how climate change as a culture war battle only seems to have real salience these days in Australia. The US seems to have moved on from the climate wars of the 2010s to Covid vaccinations, critical race theory and abortion while the UK stews in its own juices over the definition of a woman.
I wouldn't be surprised if they charged VAT as well (the rules on such things can be very odd, vide state schools).
But if they didn’t expect the Gray report to be hijacked they are too naive to be in Downing Street.
Andrew Bridgen has now declared Johnson has been given a clean bill of health, so all is good.
60 still in doubt