I'm not sure Farage can resist coming back when the situation is like this, but frankly I don't see that much benefit for him. His profile remains high among his target audience, and sure he can hurt the Tories on the migrant issue, get back some of the old magic where large parts of the Conservative Parliament Party probably did what he wanted as if they were in his party, but it'll just mean Labour win even more in the next election, he won't eclipse the Tories, so he may as well just carp from the sidelines and enjoy the limelight.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
If it turns out they get a Full English every morning too, we could be looking at a very lively Question Time with Fiona Bruce.
You know you are in England when the dinners are all awful and the breakfasts, even in inexpensive places, are things where you can fill up for the next 48 hours taking in 6,000 calories, all of it reasonably OK in quality.
Loads of less expensive places would be improved by offering the breakfast service in the evenings as well.
Do Albanians like black pudding?
I have a theory about the return of the English Breakfast.
Many of the cafes were taken over by immigrants, who didn't realise that they were supposed to used Walls sausages, bacon entirely made of fat, and coffee that was instant, boiled slowly over days.
Instead they started using proper ingredients.
A local one is run by a very, very Italian chap* - magnificent. Across the road is an old style one, run by an original British couple (both ancient). The British one (entirely filled by construction workers, and other working class) provides fairly inedible food. The Italian one - wealthier people and the food is magnificent.
*He seems to be a supporter of the er... more interesting Italian parties, though.
There's a place for quality in cafes, but those better ingredients cost a lot more, and a business that desires to be profitable will therefore charge a lot more. It seems like both ends of the market are bekng catered for where you are, which is great.
I think that varies a lot depending on where the cafe is. In a place with high labour and rental costs the impact of ingredients on the overall cost base could be pretty small. I know the old rule of thumb was 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 staff, 1/3 overheads but I expect somewhere like London it's more like 20:40:40. The cost of energy will be affecting this equation everywhere too.
That's why urban coffee shops are so expensive. The coffee and milk are cheap as chips so the £2.80 for your flat white is largely paying for staff, rent and rates, heating and other bills. And most of those places are still making losses. That's why some takeaways are still relatively cheap too, because they use free (family) labour.
You may or may not remember the strange panic about a Brick Lane place serving cereal, from around the world? Apparently it was evil to serve cereal which cost a few pounds a bowl or something. And racist to the local people. Entirely missing the point that Brick Lane curry houses are built on selling over priced, indifferent curry to richer people.
Quite a few people were astounded to find that, in London, you are paying for the property, the staff, the lighting, the internet. The food is essentially a freebie - if they simply gave you a glass of tap water, the price would be similar....
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
The latest Ipsos has D +1 Latest YouGov is Even Latest Morning Consult D+5
Some of these aren't Likely Voter polls, where Dems tend to do worse (eg latest Morning Consult Likely Voter poll is Even).
But not "all the polls" are pointing to a clear Republican win.
NB all figures taken from 538 listing, haven't double checked.
OK, so those are generic ballot polls - and aren't focused on the races in the swing districts or the likely voters - so I'm not too worried about those.
The 538 seat by seat forecast has 215 seats as solid or very likely for the Republicans, and they only need three more to win, with a further 11 leaning their way and 18 tossups.
90 times in 100 that will result in a Republican win.
It's the Senate I'm not confident about, not the House.
Yes, they are generic polls - which polls were you referring to when you mentioned "all the polls are pointing to a clear Republican win"?
No, some of those polls are Likely Voter polls - eg, the Big Village D+7 and YouGov Even are LV polls.
538 has 199 "Solid" R, and 16 "Likely R" - not "very likely". And 5 "Lean R", not 11, and 11 "Toss-up" not 18.
The 538 forecast ranges from 15% chance of Dems retaining House (Deluxe Model), to 16% (Classic Model), to 24% (Lite Model -polls only), so no 90% chance of a Republican win with their forecasts, at the moment.
Of course, you'll probably win your bet (as with most 1.1 bets), and I'd really like to wish you luck - but I'm hoping for a surprise Democrat win
Likely is a greater than 75% chance so it is very likely. Their forecast shows a republican win as an 85% chance - taking a seat by seat basis when they run the model - and given how Republican polling has firmed up in the last week (excepting those strange outliers) the momentum is in one direction and points to a >90% chance.
It's almost inconceivable they'll go backwards given they advanced in Nov 2022 and need only 6 x more seats to take the House.
You are letting your heart rule your head. But if you disagree there's fantastic value for you in backing the 200-209 seat and 210-219 republican seat bands on Betfair.
I don't know enough to say if there is value in those bands, don't even know what the odds are (German location).
I was just surprised at someone putting a grand on something based on "all the polls", when a very quick check shows it's really not all the polls. And then arguing that it is a "90 times in a hundred" probability (which may be true - but that wouldn't make 1.1 a value bet, especially if you have to pay commission). And that "90 times in a hundred" was based on misreading the 538 forecast about how many seats were R lean (actually 5 rather than 11 as you wrote), and Toss-up (actually 11 not 18) - presumably the actual figures would revise your own "90 times in a hundred" estimate down a bit?
Plus, several forecasts seem to make it between 15-30% chance of Democrats retaining the house. Maybe there are good reasons to think they are all wrong, but I'd want better arguments than inaccurate claims about "all the polls", and inaccuracies about other forecasts, to convince me of that.
And to go back to the 538 forecast for a moment - it is the "deluxe model" that has 85% Republican, the model based only on current polling is only 74%.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
Feels like Republicans have the momentum here. I have a feeling they're going to do better than expected, unfortunately.
The polls have turned against the Democrats recently, so it doesn't look good. My only hope is that the younger age group who say they will vote in large numbers this time actually do so. Also, that the very high number of early voters have a big enough effect to keep the Dems in power at least in the Senate. It could be that these factors, possibly with a disproportionate female turnout might just prove the polls wrong. But then, I always was an optimist.
Not sure cancelling the new Sizewell power station is a good idea.
Won't happen.
The power station, or the cancellation of it?
If it’s to be cancelled, then at least announcing what will replace it at the same time, might be seen as good politics at a time of record high energy bills!
Cancellation. Just the Treasury chestbeating.
There are leaks to the media day-by-day at the moment as they look at all potential tax and spending options.
Everything will need to be "reviewed" as part of a top to bottom exercise but this won't go anywhere. Sunak and Macron shook hands on it only 7 days ago.
Oh, I completely agree that there needs to be a zero-based spending review over the winter, with absolutely everything on the table - but it needs to be done in a coherent manner, finishing with a single announcement before the start of the financial year.
Dripping negative spending stories out one at a time, won’t do much for the government’s popularity. Do it all at once, to avoid every single-issue pressure group having their own day in the sun.
It will also damage investment.
Sizewell C relies on private sector investment and the government had already made the commitment.
This raises huge questions about the UK's reliability and consistency.
The real question is what the government will replace it with, we still have a huge energy deficit in 10 years time, cancelling Sizewell C may be a good decision because the EPR is clearly not good enough, bit we still need reliable energy to replace the existing nuclear reactors that will be decommissioned by then. I'd like to see a firm commitment to the modular reactors from RR and wind+storage. By firm commitment, I mean £8-10bn in state investment and another £20-30bn from the private sector. Cutting spending on future energy generation seems like an incredibly poor idea.
Successive governments back to Blair/Brown have shat on new nuclear with their prevaricating bullshit for over 20 years. This is why.
Sizewell C is ready to go and can build directly on the lessons learned from Hinkley Point C - it is a carbon copy.
There are 27 years left to achieve Net Zero and this plant decarbonises 7% of the grid.
It'd be utter insanity to cancel it.
The issue I have with sizewell C is that it's using a dead end technology like EPR which has yet to be proven to work reliably. Taishan is continuously closed for repairs, Flammanvile still hasn't opened and Olkiluoto still seems delayed indefinitely because of cracks in the reactor vessel. The issue I've got with Sizewell C isn't because it's nuclear, it's because it's EPR and that technology just doesn't seem like it works. For HPC we have EDF on the hook for all of the delays and eventual failure if they can't open it. Sizewell put the taxpayer on the hook for a reactor design that just seems flawed. We're much better off with the RR design (and RR shares are up today on the news of Sizewell C being cancelled) and investing in Moltex, First light fusion and a small next gen fusion reactor project rather than the white elephant that ITER is turning into.
It's laughable really, all these gay men turning up with their, err, wives joining them a few months later. It's a really simple issue to solve, declare Albania a safe country and stick them on easyjet flights back to Albania. Just keep doing it for a few months and eventually they'll give up.
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
Next thing that happens, someone reports the hotels are kept at 21C while the rest of us freeze.
Yes. Worst possible timing. And Farage looks like a man reborn on GB News. He has his mojo back
Was talking to my kids about Farage yesterday. They thought he was Asian because of his skin colour. I'm not sure he has cut through with teenagers in London.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
That would be quite the turnaround, according to this I'm sure balanced piece
The name ‘Nigel’ is now extinct – yet another thing we can probably blame on Brexit
Not sure cancelling the new Sizewell power station is a good idea.
Won't happen.
The power station, or the cancellation of it?
If it’s to be cancelled, then at least announcing what will replace it at the same time, might be seen as good politics at a time of record high energy bills!
Cancellation. Just the Treasury chestbeating.
There are leaks to the media day-by-day at the moment as they look at all potential tax and spending options.
Everything will need to be "reviewed" as part of a top to bottom exercise but this won't go anywhere. Sunak and Macron shook hands on it only 7 days ago.
Oh, I completely agree that there needs to be a zero-based spending review over the winter, with absolutely everything on the table - but it needs to be done in a coherent manner, finishing with a single announcement before the start of the financial year.
Dripping negative spending stories out one at a time, won’t do much for the government’s popularity. Do it all at once, to avoid every single-issue pressure group having their own day in the sun.
It will also damage investment.
Sizewell C relies on private sector investment and the government had already made the commitment.
This raises huge questions about the UK's reliability and consistency.
The real question is what the government will replace it with, we still have a huge energy deficit in 10 years time, cancelling Sizewell C may be a good decision because the EPR is clearly not good enough, bit we still need reliable energy to replace the existing nuclear reactors that will be decommissioned by then. I'd like to see a firm commitment to the modular reactors from RR and wind+storage. By firm commitment, I mean £8-10bn in state investment and another £20-30bn from the private sector. Cutting spending on future energy generation seems like an incredibly poor idea.
Successive governments back to Blair/Brown have shat on new nuclear with their prevaricating bullshit for over 20 years. This is why.
Sizewell C is ready to go and can build directly on the lessons learned from Hinkley Point C - it is a carbon copy.
There are 27 years left to achieve Net Zero and this plant decarbonises 7% of the grid.
It'd be utter insanity to cancel it.
The issue I have with sizewell C is that it's using a dead end technology like EPR which has yet to be proven to work reliably. Taishan is continuously closed for repairs, Flammanvile still hasn't opened and Olkiluoto still seems delayed indefinitely because of cracks in the reactor vessel. The issue I've got with Sizewell C isn't because it's nuclear, it's because it's EPR and that technology just doesn't seem like it works. For HPC we have EDF on the hook for all of the delays and eventual failure if they can't open it. Sizewell put the taxpayer on the hook for a reactor design that just seems flawed. We're much better off with the RR design (and RR shares are up today on the news of Sizewell C being cancelled) and investing in Moltex, First light fusion and a small next gen fusion reactor project rather than the white elephant that ITER is turning into.
Hold on why aren't we just doing a cfd deal for Sizewell C ?
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
If it turns out they get a Full English every morning too, we could be looking at a very lively Question Time with Fiona Bruce.
You know you are in England when the dinners are all awful and the breakfasts, even in inexpensive places, are things where you can fill up for the next 48 hours taking in 6,000 calories, all of it reasonably OK in quality.
Loads of less expensive places would be improved by offering the breakfast service in the evenings as well.
Do Albanians like black pudding?
This is a seriously dated account of British food. Any four star hotel or above (and many 3 stars) will offer good and sometimes excellent dinners
Two stars and below generally won’t have restaurants doing dinner
Let us criticise the things we get wrong. Not the good things. UK food is vastly improved. Unrecognisable
Not in the culinary hinterland that is South Wales. Mind you, I have been served dishes that are "unrecognisable" across the UK.
You may exclusively eat at Simpsons, and Wheeler's of St James, and the quality may be first class. Mere mortals having the temerity to only spend £25 to £50 per head are still invariably served s****.
I do not recognise this for my area (SW wilts, and into Bath, Somerset etc). Plenty of decent places to eat with a range of budgets.
I am sure there are places in Bath that are exceptional (I like Sally Lunn's for breakfast). On my way home from Portsmouth last year I stopped at a pub near Warminster and it was both dire and expensive.
I went for lunch yesterday at an American Diner here in Port Talbot. It was expensive and exceptionally poor. I know where to go to get something decent, but calling in at an unfamiliar restaurant invariably ends in tears.
The UK is not the Paris Latin Quarter Leon would have us believe.
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
Next thing that happens, someone reports the hotels are kept at 21C while the rest of us freeze.
Yes. Worst possible timing. And Farage looks like a man reborn on GB News. He has his mojo back
Was talking to my kids about Farage yesterday. They thought he was Asian because of his skin colour. I'm not sure he has cut through with teenagers in London.
Ah the "talk" where you point out various things in this world that are very harmful, thus to be avoided, but that you trust them to make their own mind up. Excellent parenting.
Teenagers occupy an entirely self contained world that has almost no overlap with the things people talk about on here. Explaining Nigel Farage to them is like explaining quantum physics to an espadrille.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
That would be quite the turnaround, according to this I'm sure balanced piece
The name ‘Nigel’ is now extinct – yet another thing we can probably blame on Brexit
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
If it turns out they get a Full English every morning too, we could be looking at a very lively Question Time with Fiona Bruce.
You know you are in England when the dinners are all awful and the breakfasts, even in inexpensive places, are things where you can fill up for the next 48 hours taking in 6,000 calories, all of it reasonably OK in quality.
Loads of less expensive places would be improved by offering the breakfast service in the evenings as well.
Do Albanians like black pudding?
This is a seriously dated account of British food. Any four star hotel or above (and many 3 stars) will offer good and sometimes excellent dinners
Two stars and below generally won’t have restaurants doing dinner
Let us criticise the things we get wrong. Not the good things. UK food is vastly improved. Unrecognisable
Not in the culinary hinterland that is South Wales. Mind you, I have been served dishes that are "unrecognisable" across the UK.
You may exclusively eat at Simpsons, and Wheeler's of St James, and the quality may be first class. Mere mortals having the temerity to only spend £25 to £50 per head are still invariably served s****.
I do not recognise this for my area (SW wilts, and into Bath, Somerset etc). Plenty of decent places to eat with a range of budgets.
Not been the same since the Little Chef closed at Beckington.
Not sure cancelling the new Sizewell power station is a good idea.
Won't happen.
The power station, or the cancellation of it?
If it’s to be cancelled, then at least announcing what will replace it at the same time, might be seen as good politics at a time of record high energy bills!
Cancellation. Just the Treasury chestbeating.
There are leaks to the media day-by-day at the moment as they look at all potential tax and spending options.
Everything will need to be "reviewed" as part of a top to bottom exercise but this won't go anywhere. Sunak and Macron shook hands on it only 7 days ago.
Oh, I completely agree that there needs to be a zero-based spending review over the winter, with absolutely everything on the table - but it needs to be done in a coherent manner, finishing with a single announcement before the start of the financial year.
Dripping negative spending stories out one at a time, won’t do much for the government’s popularity. Do it all at once, to avoid every single-issue pressure group having their own day in the sun.
It will also damage investment.
Sizewell C relies on private sector investment and the government had already made the commitment.
This raises huge questions about the UK's reliability and consistency.
The real question is what the government will replace it with, we still have a huge energy deficit in 10 years time, cancelling Sizewell C may be a good decision because the EPR is clearly not good enough, bit we still need reliable energy to replace the existing nuclear reactors that will be decommissioned by then. I'd like to see a firm commitment to the modular reactors from RR and wind+storage. By firm commitment, I mean £8-10bn in state investment and another £20-30bn from the private sector. Cutting spending on future energy generation seems like an incredibly poor idea.
Successive governments back to Blair/Brown have shat on new nuclear with their prevaricating bullshit for over 20 years. This is why.
Sizewell C is ready to go and can build directly on the lessons learned from Hinkley Point C - it is a carbon copy.
There are 27 years left to achieve Net Zero and this plant decarbonises 7% of the grid.
It'd be utter insanity to cancel it.
The issue I have with sizewell C is that it's using a dead end technology like EPR which has yet to be proven to work reliably. Taishan is continuously closed for repairs, Flammanvile still hasn't opened and Olkiluoto still seems delayed indefinitely because of cracks in the reactor vessel. The issue I've got with Sizewell C isn't because it's nuclear, it's because it's EPR and that technology just doesn't seem like it works. For HPC we have EDF on the hook for all of the delays and eventual failure if they can't open it. Sizewell put the taxpayer on the hook for a reactor design that just seems flawed. We're much better off with the RR design (and RR shares are up today on the news of Sizewell C being cancelled) and investing in Moltex, First light fusion and a small next gen fusion reactor project rather than the white elephant that ITER is turning into.
Hold on why aren't we just doing a cfd deal for Sizewell C ?
No, EDF didn't want to sign that deal. They insisted the state join as principle investor, it puts us on the hook for construction delays and reactor design problems that are not under the control of the UK government.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
It's laughable really, all these gay men turning up with their, err, wives joining them a few months later. It's a really simple issue to solve, declare Albania a safe country and stick them on easyjet flights back to Albania. Just keep doing it for a few months and eventually they'll give up.
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
If it turns out they get a Full English every morning too, we could be looking at a very lively Question Time with Fiona Bruce.
You know you are in England when the dinners are all awful and the breakfasts, even in inexpensive places, are things where you can fill up for the next 48 hours taking in 6,000 calories, all of it reasonably OK in quality.
Loads of less expensive places would be improved by offering the breakfast service in the evenings as well.
Do Albanians like black pudding?
This is a seriously dated account of British food. Any four star hotel or above (and many 3 stars) will offer good and sometimes excellent dinners
Two stars and below generally won’t have restaurants doing dinner
Let us criticise the things we get wrong. Not the good things. UK food is vastly improved. Unrecognisable
Not in the culinary hinterland that is South Wales. Mind you, I have been served dishes that are "unrecognisable" across the UK.
You may exclusively eat at Simpsons, and Wheeler's of St James, and the quality may be first class. Mere mortals having the temerity to only spend £25 to £50 per head are still invariably served s****.
I do not recognise this for my area (SW wilts, and into Bath, Somerset etc). Plenty of decent places to eat with a range of budgets.
Not been the same since the Little Chef closed at Beckington.
Are you not satisfied with Burger King at Warminster services? Good lord man, you demand too much!
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
The latest Ipsos has D +1 Latest YouGov is Even Latest Morning Consult D+5
Some of these aren't Likely Voter polls, where Dems tend to do worse (eg latest Morning Consult Likely Voter poll is Even).
But not "all the polls" are pointing to a clear Republican win.
NB all figures taken from 538 listing, haven't double checked.
OK, so those are generic ballot polls - and aren't focused on the races in the swing districts or the likely voters - so I'm not too worried about those.
The 538 seat by seat forecast has 215 seats as solid or very likely for the Republicans, and they only need three more to win, with a further 11 leaning their way and 18 tossups.
90 times in 100 that will result in a Republican win.
It's the Senate I'm not confident about, not the House.
Yes, they are generic polls - which polls were you referring to when you mentioned "all the polls are pointing to a clear Republican win"?
No, some of those polls are Likely Voter polls - eg, the Big Village D+7 and YouGov Even are LV polls.
538 has 199 "Solid" R, and 16 "Likely R" - not "very likely". And 5 "Lean R", not 11, and 11 "Toss-up" not 18.
The 538 forecast ranges from 15% chance of Dems retaining House (Deluxe Model), to 16% (Classic Model), to 24% (Lite Model -polls only), so no 90% chance of a Republican win with their forecasts, at the moment.
Of course, you'll probably win your bet (as with most 1.1 bets), and I'd really like to wish you luck - but I'm hoping for a surprise Democrat win
Likely is a greater than 75% chance so it is very likely. Their forecast shows a republican win as an 85% chance - taking a seat by seat basis when they run the model - and given how Republican polling has firmed up in the last week (excepting those strange outliers) the momentum is in one direction and points to a >90% chance.
It's almost inconceivable they'll go backwards given they advanced in Nov 2022 and need only 6 x more seats to take the House.
You are letting your heart rule your head. But if you disagree there's fantastic value for you in backing the 200-209 seat and 210-219 republican seat bands on Betfair.
I don't know enough to say if there is value in those bands, don't even know what the odds are (German location).
I was just surprised at someone putting a grand on something based on "all the polls", when a very quick check shows it's really not all the polls. And then arguing that it is a "90 times in a hundred" probability (which may be true - but that wouldn't make 1.1 a value bet, especially if you have to pay commission). And that "90 times in a hundred" was based on misreading the 538 forecast about how many seats were R lean (actually 5 rather than 11 as you wrote), and Toss-up (actually 11 not 18) - presumably the actual figures would revise your own "90 times in a hundred" estimate down a bit?
Plus, several forecasts seem to make it between 15-30% chance of Democrats retaining the house. Maybe there are good reasons to think they are all wrong, but I'd want better arguments than inaccurate claims about "all the polls", and inaccuracies about other forecasts, to convince me of that.
And to go back to the 538 forecast for a moment - it is the "deluxe model" that has 85% Republican, the model based only on current polling is only 74%.
538 has a handy filter. They rate each polling company A to C. Neither Big Village nor Morning Consult rates as A.
Taking the firms that rate as A- and above, the nine most recent polls have 6 Republican leads, 2 Democratic leads and 1 tie, for an average 2.4% Republican lead.
The Democrats led by 2.8% in 2020. So, only a small drop from that would see the Republicans take the House.
The Democrats' only hope now is a systemic polling error.
As I understand it the Albanians are mainly here to work in the NHS?
“Bedford in August. A car drifts in, brakes locked & 2 men jump out. In the melee, gun shots are fired, people are sporting machetes & knives. A car is used as a weapon to injure & flee.
Apparently it's Albanians fighting Travellers for control of the local drug trade.”
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
If it turns out they get a Full English every morning too, we could be looking at a very lively Question Time with Fiona Bruce.
You know you are in England when the dinners are all awful and the breakfasts, even in inexpensive places, are things where you can fill up for the next 48 hours taking in 6,000 calories, all of it reasonably OK in quality.
Loads of less expensive places would be improved by offering the breakfast service in the evenings as well.
Do Albanians like black pudding?
This is a seriously dated account of British food. Any four star hotel or above (and many 3 stars) will offer good and sometimes excellent dinners
Two stars and below generally won’t have restaurants doing dinner
Let us criticise the things we get wrong. Not the good things. UK food is vastly improved. Unrecognisable
Not in the culinary hinterland that is South Wales. Mind you, I have been served dishes that are "unrecognisable" across the UK.
You may exclusively eat at Simpsons, and Wheeler's of St James, and the quality may be first class. Mere mortals having the temerity to only spend £25 to £50 per head are still invariably served s****.
I do not recognise this for my area (SW wilts, and into Bath, Somerset etc). Plenty of decent places to eat with a range of budgets.
I am sure there are places in Bath that are exceptional (I like Sally Lunn's for breakfast). On my way home from Portsmouth last year I stopped at a pub near Warminster and it was both dire and expensive.
I went for lunch yesterday at an American Diner here in Port Talbot. It was expensive and exceptionally poor. I know where to go to get something decent, but calling in at an unfamiliar restaurant invariably ends in tears.
The UK is not the Paris Latin Quarter Leon would have us believe.
Tripadvisor, Google reviews, Open Table are your friends here. Use them and you should on average get meals that match expectations and suit your tastes and budgets.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It doesn't work particularly well in the private sector either. It's good for (most of) the people doing it, but not for the customers.
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
If it turns out they get a Full English every morning too, we could be looking at a very lively Question Time with Fiona Bruce.
You know you are in England when the dinners are all awful and the breakfasts, even in inexpensive places, are things where you can fill up for the next 48 hours taking in 6,000 calories, all of it reasonably OK in quality.
Loads of less expensive places would be improved by offering the breakfast service in the evenings as well.
Do Albanians like black pudding?
This is a seriously dated account of British food. Any four star hotel or above (and many 3 stars) will offer good and sometimes excellent dinners
Two stars and below generally won’t have restaurants doing dinner
Let us criticise the things we get wrong. Not the good things. UK food is vastly improved. Unrecognisable
Not in the culinary hinterland that is South Wales. Mind you, I have been served dishes that are "unrecognisable" across the UK.
You may exclusively eat at Simpsons, and Wheeler's of St James, and the quality may be first class. Mere mortals having the temerity to only spend £25 to £50 per head are still invariably served s****.
I do not recognise this for my area (SW wilts, and into Bath, Somerset etc). Plenty of decent places to eat with a range of budgets.
Not been the same since the Little Chef closed at Beckington.
Are you not satisfied with Burger King at Warminster services? Good lord man, you demand too much!
Out of the 530 Burger King outlets in the UK, that particular location must rank at 530.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
For our business WFH has transformed Local Authorities from blue chip customers to greasy chips, we don't bother with them anymore.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
PB Tories massively overestimate how much the electorate are focused on dinghies as opposed to the cost of living crisis, NHS, Ukraine etc.
Not sure cancelling the new Sizewell power station is a good idea.
Won't happen.
The power station, or the cancellation of it?
If it’s to be cancelled, then at least announcing what will replace it at the same time, might be seen as good politics at a time of record high energy bills!
Cancellation. Just the Treasury chestbeating.
There are leaks to the media day-by-day at the moment as they look at all potential tax and spending options.
Everything will need to be "reviewed" as part of a top to bottom exercise but this won't go anywhere. Sunak and Macron shook hands on it only 7 days ago.
Oh, I completely agree that there needs to be a zero-based spending review over the winter, with absolutely everything on the table - but it needs to be done in a coherent manner, finishing with a single announcement before the start of the financial year.
Dripping negative spending stories out one at a time, won’t do much for the government’s popularity. Do it all at once, to avoid every single-issue pressure group having their own day in the sun.
It will also damage investment.
Sizewell C relies on private sector investment and the government had already made the commitment.
This raises huge questions about the UK's reliability and consistency.
The real question is what the government will replace it with, we still have a huge energy deficit in 10 years time, cancelling Sizewell C may be a good decision because the EPR is clearly not good enough, bit we still need reliable energy to replace the existing nuclear reactors that will be decommissioned by then. I'd like to see a firm commitment to the modular reactors from RR and wind+storage. By firm commitment, I mean £8-10bn in state investment and another £20-30bn from the private sector. Cutting spending on future energy generation seems like an incredibly poor idea.
Successive governments back to Blair/Brown have shat on new nuclear with their prevaricating bullshit for over 20 years. This is why.
Sizewell C is ready to go and can build directly on the lessons learned from Hinkley Point C - it is a carbon copy.
There are 27 years left to achieve Net Zero and this plant decarbonises 7% of the grid.
It'd be utter insanity to cancel it.
The issue I have with sizewell C is that it's using a dead end technology like EPR which has yet to be proven to work reliably. Taishan is continuously closed for repairs, Flammanvile still hasn't opened and Olkiluoto still seems delayed indefinitely because of cracks in the reactor vessel. The issue I've got with Sizewell C isn't because it's nuclear, it's because it's EPR and that technology just doesn't seem like it works. For HPC we have EDF on the hook for all of the delays and eventual failure if they can't open it. Sizewell put the taxpayer on the hook for a reactor design that just seems flawed. We're much better off with the RR design (and RR shares are up today on the news of Sizewell C being cancelled) and investing in Moltex, First light fusion and a small next gen fusion reactor project rather than the white elephant that ITER is turning into.
Hold on why aren't we just doing a cfd deal for Sizewell C ?
No, EDF didn't want to sign that deal. They insisted the state join as principle investor, it puts us on the hook for construction delays and reactor design problems that are not under the control of the UK government.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
PB Tories massively overestimate how much the electorate are focused on dinghies as opposed to the cost of living crisis, NHS, Ukraine etc.
They don't have an answer on the first two and can't really do more on the second. What else can they talk about?
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
We spent the first half of 2019 adapting our work process to agile/kaizen. Worked out very well for us as a company that isn't in software development.
SNP +4.1 points Con +2.9 Lab +10.0 LD +2.8 Ind -19.8
Do we know if the original independent was one of those Tories who had fallen out with his fellows in ******, or was [edit] simply one of the rustic Independents who are really Tories but hoping to pretend not to be a Tory, or was a genuine Independent? That would throw some light on the change.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
For our business WFH has transformed Local Authorities from blue chip customers to greasy chips, we don't bother with them anymore.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
We spent the first half of 2019 adapting our work process to agile/kaizen. Worked out very well for us as a company that isn't in software development.
Yup - JIRA (for example) is a very good way to break work down into smaller pieces, assign them to people. Complete with QAing the result.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
How do you know the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable when the Home Office seems unable to actually apply any rules, with massive backlogs for cases and deportations? I suspect the rules work fine; it’s the Home Office that doesn’t. Despite what the current government believes, changing the rules is rarely a good substitute for competent administration.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
£1000 to jump the visa queue. In any other country that would be called paying a bribe, but many Brits just don't see this. "Sir" wouldn't be a crook.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
We spent the first half of 2019 adapting our work process to agile/kaizen. Worked out very well for us as a company that isn't in software development.
Yup - JIRA (for example) is a very good way to break work down into smaller pieces, assign them to people. Complete with QAing the result.
Ah - economic growth, eh? Such a future the current system has got.
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
The latest Ipsos has D +1 Latest YouGov is Even Latest Morning Consult D+5
Some of these aren't Likely Voter polls, where Dems tend to do worse (eg latest Morning Consult Likely Voter poll is Even).
But not "all the polls" are pointing to a clear Republican win.
NB all figures taken from 538 listing, haven't double checked.
OK, so those are generic ballot polls - and aren't focused on the races in the swing districts or the likely voters - so I'm not too worried about those.
The 538 seat by seat forecast has 215 seats as solid or very likely for the Republicans, and they only need three more to win, with a further 11 leaning their way and 18 tossups.
90 times in 100 that will result in a Republican win.
It's the Senate I'm not confident about, not the House.
Yes, they are generic polls - which polls were you referring to when you mentioned "all the polls are pointing to a clear Republican win"?
No, some of those polls are Likely Voter polls - eg, the Big Village D+7 and YouGov Even are LV polls.
538 has 199 "Solid" R, and 16 "Likely R" - not "very likely". And 5 "Lean R", not 11, and 11 "Toss-up" not 18.
The 538 forecast ranges from 15% chance of Dems retaining House (Deluxe Model), to 16% (Classic Model), to 24% (Lite Model -polls only), so no 90% chance of a Republican win with their forecasts, at the moment.
Of course, you'll probably win your bet (as with most 1.1 bets), and I'd really like to wish you luck - but I'm hoping for a surprise Democrat win
Likely is a greater than 75% chance so it is very likely. Their forecast shows a republican win as an 85% chance - taking a seat by seat basis when they run the model - and given how Republican polling has firmed up in the last week (excepting those strange outliers) the momentum is in one direction and points to a >90% chance.
It's almost inconceivable they'll go backwards given they advanced in Nov 2022 and need only 6 x more seats to take the House.
You are letting your heart rule your head. But if you disagree there's fantastic value for you in backing the 200-209 seat and 210-219 republican seat bands on Betfair.
I don't know enough to say if there is value in those bands, don't even know what the odds are (German location).
I was just surprised at someone putting a grand on something based on "all the polls", when a very quick check shows it's really not all the polls. And then arguing that it is a "90 times in a hundred" probability (which may be true - but that wouldn't make 1.1 a value bet, especially if you have to pay commission). And that "90 times in a hundred" was based on misreading the 538 forecast about how many seats were R lean (actually 5 rather than 11 as you wrote), and Toss-up (actually 11 not 18) - presumably the actual figures would revise your own "90 times in a hundred" estimate down a bit?
Plus, several forecasts seem to make it between 15-30% chance of Democrats retaining the house. Maybe there are good reasons to think they are all wrong, but I'd want better arguments than inaccurate claims about "all the polls", and inaccuracies about other forecasts, to convince me of that.
And to go back to the 538 forecast for a moment - it is the "deluxe model" that has 85% Republican, the model based only on current polling is only 74%.
538 has a handy filter. They rate each polling company A to C. Neither Big Village nor Morning Consult rates as A.
Taking the firms that rate as A- and above, the nine most recent polls have 6 Republican leads, 2 Democratic leads and 1 tie, for an average 2.4% Republican lead.
The Democrats led by 2.8% in 2020. So, only a small drop from that would see the Republicans take the House.
The Democrats' only hope now is a systemic polling error.
Or just use 538's own polling average, which takes all these factors into account, and is handily shown in the thread header - currently R 1.2% ahead. Other polling averages are available.
But in any case, an "only hope" of polling average being out by a relatively small amount might add up to at least a 10% chance, no?
I don't know whether 1.1 at BF on Republicans winning the House is value or not, it's not something I'm going to bet on, but I haven't heard anything to convince me that it is. And I was impressed by what seemed like a fairly casual bet of a grand - although that maybe just isn't a lot of money for some people!
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
A call centre WFH is possible, but as you say it’s not done by sending the existing team home with a laptop. It needs the SIP phones, the VPN tunnels, and most importantly the management, processes and training - all of which are quite different compared to office-based roles.
Most of the UK public sector appears to have started WFH in March 2020, and changed nothing since then.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
There are solutions. The problem is that the solutions break the rules of the system. And the nostrums of the same.
Next time you are talking to a member of the permanent machinery of government, try the idea that @rcs1000 and I have suggested of big fines for employers of illegals, combined with sharing the fine with the employee giving evidence against the employer. Plus indefinite leave to remain for the the employee.
SNP +4.1 points Con +2.9 Lab +10.0 LD +2.8 Ind -19.8
Do we know if the original independent was one of those Tories who had fallen out with his fellows in ******, or was [edit] simply one of the rustic Independents who are really Tories but hoping to pretend not to be a Tory, or was a genuine Independent? That would throw some light on the change.
Indy was a Tory, but no matter. The simple reality on this was that the SNP failed to find enough candidates in May. So our (LD) paper candidate was unexpectedly elected by means of being the 3rd and final declared candidate in a 3 person ward. As the only LD on Moray council and very quickly said they couldn't do the job.
I am not at all surprised by the big SNP vote and the tiny LD one.
Why don't the Democrats have better candidates than Joe Biden?
Here's one reason: "Hindsight can be rosy, but Obama’s record of helping down-ballot Democrats is … less than stellar. In fact, Obama presided over the loss of more House, Senate, state legislative and governors’ seats than any president in U.S. history.
When Obama took office, Democrats were on top of the world. They had a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — the largest since 1979. And they had 257 seats in the House — the largest majority since 1993. Eight years later, after the 2016 elections, Democrats held just 48 senate seats and 194 House seats — a net loss of 12 Senate seats and 63 House seats." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/02/barack-obama-closer-lost-downballot-democrats/
While Obama was president, Democrats lost many of their competent moderates, who might otherwise now be governors, senators, and potential presidents.
(Trump has had a similar, though weaker, effect on the Republican Party.)
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
The Home Office has just closed down as far as I can tell. Both of our Ukrainians' passports have disappeared into its bowels and I'll be amazed if we ever see them again.
Quite considerable chunks of government closed down for COVID and don't seem to have reopened. DVLA etc.
Im afraid its due to WFH. In the Public Sector it simply does not work.
It's due to not recognising that WFH is not just sending everyone home with a laptop. Any more than supply chain management is selling the warehouse and relying on minute to minute deliveries.
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
For our business WFH has transformed Local Authorities from blue chip customers to greasy chips, we don't bother with them anymore.
Do I take that means that their work is not worth having because the inability to make decisions or pay promptly means it is too much trouble?
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
£1000 to jump the visa queue. In any other country that would be called paying a bribe, but many Brits just don't see this. "Sir" wouldn't be a crook.
It’s not a bribe if it’s paid to the Treasury, rather than an individual decision-maker. I suspect that in practice it’s for urgent business meetings, family funerals, and people fleeing their own country like Russia.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
How do you know the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable when the Home Office seems unable to actually apply any rules, with massive backlogs for cases and deportations? I suspect the rules work fine; it’s the Home Office that doesn’t. Despite what the current government believes, changing the rules is rarely a good substitute for competent administration.
Sadly it is not just the current government who think that, though they are demonstrating it a lot lately. Politicians almost always want to do something new - a new law, a new department, etc - when the needed elements are already there, if you make it work properly.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
PB Tories massively overestimate how much the electorate are focused on dinghies as opposed to the cost of living crisis, NHS, Ukraine etc.
Cost of living crisis, 100 per cent for sure. NHS, yes (though for the nth time, health is devolved, and Labour are presiding over a mess in Wales).
But, Ukraine ... I don't believe you. The electorate are absolutely not focussed on Ukraine (though Pb.com is).
Why don't the Democrats have better candidates than Joe Biden?
Here's one reason: "Hindsight can be rosy, but Obama’s record of helping down-ballot Democrats is … less than stellar. In fact, Obama presided over the loss of more House, Senate, state legislative and governors’ seats than any president in U.S. history.
When Obama took office, Democrats were on top of the world. They had a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — the largest since 1979. And they had 257 seats in the House — the largest majority since 1993. Eight years later, after the 2016 elections, Democrats held just 48 senate seats and 194 House seats — a net loss of 12 Senate seats and 63 House seats." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/02/barack-obama-closer-lost-downballot-democrats/
While Obama was president, Democrats lost many of their competent moderates, who might otherwise now be governors, senators, and potential presidents.
(Trump has had a similar, though weaker, effect on the Republican Party.)
It feels like the Senate has always been on a knife edge as long as I can remember, it's a shock to check and see it really wasn't.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
There are solutions. The problem is that the solutions break the rules of the system. And the nostrums of the same.
Next time you are talking to a member of the permanent machinery of government, try the idea that @rcs1000 and I have suggested of big fines for employers of illegals, combined with sharing the fine with the employee giving evidence against the employer. Plus indefinite leave to remain for the the employee.
The look of horror is... instructive.
We already have big fines. We haven't tried incentivising the employees though. I suspect the horror would be that there would be vast numbers of them.
For me the only thing that would work is a very large scale amnesty to get us past a system that is utterly and completely overwhelmed to one that can work in reasonable timescales and actually be implemented by the removal of those not found to be eligible.
Not sure cancelling the new Sizewell power station is a good idea.
Won't happen.
The power station, or the cancellation of it?
If it’s to be cancelled, then at least announcing what will replace it at the same time, might be seen as good politics at a time of record high energy bills!
Cancellation. Just the Treasury chestbeating.
There are leaks to the media day-by-day at the moment as they look at all potential tax and spending options.
Everything will need to be "reviewed" as part of a top to bottom exercise but this won't go anywhere. Sunak and Macron shook hands on it only 7 days ago.
Oh, I completely agree that there needs to be a zero-based spending review over the winter, with absolutely everything on the table - but it needs to be done in a coherent manner, finishing with a single announcement before the start of the financial year.
Dripping negative spending stories out one at a time, won’t do much for the government’s popularity. Do it all at once, to avoid every single-issue pressure group having their own day in the sun.
It will also damage investment.
Sizewell C relies on private sector investment and the government had already made the commitment.
This raises huge questions about the UK's reliability and consistency.
The real question is what the government will replace it with, we still have a huge energy deficit in 10 years time, cancelling Sizewell C may be a good decision because the EPR is clearly not good enough, bit we still need reliable energy to replace the existing nuclear reactors that will be decommissioned by then. I'd like to see a firm commitment to the modular reactors from RR and wind+storage. By firm commitment, I mean £8-10bn in state investment and another £20-30bn from the private sector. Cutting spending on future energy generation seems like an incredibly poor idea.
Successive governments back to Blair/Brown have shat on new nuclear with their prevaricating bullshit for over 20 years. This is why.
Sizewell C is ready to go and can build directly on the lessons learned from Hinkley Point C - it is a carbon copy.
There are 27 years left to achieve Net Zero and this plant decarbonises 7% of the grid.
It'd be utter insanity to cancel it.
The issue I have with sizewell C is that it's using a dead end technology like EPR which has yet to be proven to work reliably. Taishan is continuously closed for repairs, Flammanvile still hasn't opened and Olkiluoto still seems delayed indefinitely because of cracks in the reactor vessel. The issue I've got with Sizewell C isn't because it's nuclear, it's because it's EPR and that technology just doesn't seem like it works. For HPC we have EDF on the hook for all of the delays and eventual failure if they can't open it. Sizewell put the taxpayer on the hook for a reactor design that just seems flawed. We're much better off with the RR design (and RR shares are up today on the news of Sizewell C being cancelled) and investing in Moltex, First light fusion and a small next gen fusion reactor project rather than the white elephant that ITER is turning into.
Hold on why aren't we just doing a cfd deal for Sizewell C ?
Doing it as a RAB model allows private funding to buy in and lowers the WACC (a big part of HPC cost) and thus the cost to the taxpayer/consumer.
I know a lot about this project as am involved with it so feel free to DM for more.
Why don't the Democrats have better candidates than Joe Biden?
Here's one reason: "Hindsight can be rosy, but Obama’s record of helping down-ballot Democrats is … less than stellar. In fact, Obama presided over the loss of more House, Senate, state legislative and governors’ seats than any president in U.S. history.
When Obama took office, Democrats were on top of the world. They had a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — the largest since 1979. And they had 257 seats in the House — the largest majority since 1993. Eight years later, after the 2016 elections, Democrats held just 48 senate seats and 194 House seats — a net loss of 12 Senate seats and 63 House seats." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/02/barack-obama-closer-lost-downballot-democrats/
While Obama was president, Democrats lost many of their competent moderates, who might otherwise now be governors, senators, and potential presidents.
(Trump has had a similar, though weaker, effect on the Republican Party.)
In terms of losing competent moderates, he's had a greater effect.
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
The latest Ipsos has D +1 Latest YouGov is Even Latest Morning Consult D+5
Some of these aren't Likely Voter polls, where Dems tend to do worse (eg latest Morning Consult Likely Voter poll is Even).
But not "all the polls" are pointing to a clear Republican win.
NB all figures taken from 538 listing, haven't double checked.
OK, so those are generic ballot polls - and aren't focused on the races in the swing districts or the likely voters - so I'm not too worried about those.
The 538 seat by seat forecast has 215 seats as solid or very likely for the Republicans, and they only need three more to win, with a further 11 leaning their way and 18 tossups.
90 times in 100 that will result in a Republican win.
It's the Senate I'm not confident about, not the House.
Yes, they are generic polls - which polls were you referring to when you mentioned "all the polls are pointing to a clear Republican win"?
No, some of those polls are Likely Voter polls - eg, the Big Village D+7 and YouGov Even are LV polls.
538 has 199 "Solid" R, and 16 "Likely R" - not "very likely". And 5 "Lean R", not 11, and 11 "Toss-up" not 18.
The 538 forecast ranges from 15% chance of Dems retaining House (Deluxe Model), to 16% (Classic Model), to 24% (Lite Model -polls only), so no 90% chance of a Republican win with their forecasts, at the moment.
Of course, you'll probably win your bet (as with most 1.1 bets), and I'd really like to wish you luck - but I'm hoping for a surprise Democrat win
Likely is a greater than 75% chance so it is very likely. Their forecast shows a republican win as an 85% chance - taking a seat by seat basis when they run the model - and given how Republican polling has firmed up in the last week (excepting those strange outliers) the momentum is in one direction and points to a >90% chance.
It's almost inconceivable they'll go backwards given they advanced in Nov 2022 and need only 6 x more seats to take the House.
You are letting your heart rule your head. But if you disagree there's fantastic value for you in backing the 200-209 seat and 210-219 republican seat bands on Betfair.
I don't know enough to say if there is value in those bands, don't even know what the odds are (German location).
I was just surprised at someone putting a grand on something based on "all the polls", when a very quick check shows it's really not all the polls. And then arguing that it is a "90 times in a hundred" probability (which may be true - but that wouldn't make 1.1 a value bet, especially if you have to pay commission). And that "90 times in a hundred" was based on misreading the 538 forecast about how many seats were R lean (actually 5 rather than 11 as you wrote), and Toss-up (actually 11 not 18) - presumably the actual figures would revise your own "90 times in a hundred" estimate down a bit?
Plus, several forecasts seem to make it between 15-30% chance of Democrats retaining the house. Maybe there are good reasons to think they are all wrong, but I'd want better arguments than inaccurate claims about "all the polls", and inaccuracies about other forecasts, to convince me of that.
And to go back to the 538 forecast for a moment - it is the "deluxe model" that has 85% Republican, the model based only on current polling is only 74%.
538 has a handy filter. They rate each polling company A to C. Neither Big Village nor Morning Consult rates as A.
Taking the firms that rate as A- and above, the nine most recent polls have 6 Republican leads, 2 Democratic leads and 1 tie, for an average 2.4% Republican lead.
The Democrats led by 2.8% in 2020. So, only a small drop from that would see the Republicans take the House.
The Democrats' only hope now is a systemic polling error.
Or just use 538's own polling average, which takes all these factors into account, and is handily shown in the thread header - currently R 1.2% ahead. Other polling averages are available.
But in any case, an "only hope" of polling average being out by a relatively small amount might add up to at least a 10% chance, no?
I don't know whether 1.1 at BF on Republicans winning the House is value or not, it's not something I'm going to bet on, but I haven't heard anything to convince me that it is. And I was impressed by what seemed like a fairly casual bet of a grand - although that maybe just isn't a lot of money for some people!
I'm confident in my analysis and my bet. You seem to be more interested in pedantry and one-upmanship.
If you want to make a useful contribution to betting discussion next time try to be like Sean Fear and post additional information and not be a twat about it.
Not sure cancelling the new Sizewell power station is a good idea.
Won't happen.
The power station, or the cancellation of it?
If it’s to be cancelled, then at least announcing what will replace it at the same time, might be seen as good politics at a time of record high energy bills!
Cancellation. Just the Treasury chestbeating.
There are leaks to the media day-by-day at the moment as they look at all potential tax and spending options.
Everything will need to be "reviewed" as part of a top to bottom exercise but this won't go anywhere. Sunak and Macron shook hands on it only 7 days ago.
Oh, I completely agree that there needs to be a zero-based spending review over the winter, with absolutely everything on the table - but it needs to be done in a coherent manner, finishing with a single announcement before the start of the financial year.
Dripping negative spending stories out one at a time, won’t do much for the government’s popularity. Do it all at once, to avoid every single-issue pressure group having their own day in the sun.
It will also damage investment.
Sizewell C relies on private sector investment and the government had already made the commitment.
This raises huge questions about the UK's reliability and consistency.
The real question is what the government will replace it with, we still have a huge energy deficit in 10 years time, cancelling Sizewell C may be a good decision because the EPR is clearly not good enough, bit we still need reliable energy to replace the existing nuclear reactors that will be decommissioned by then. I'd like to see a firm commitment to the modular reactors from RR and wind+storage. By firm commitment, I mean £8-10bn in state investment and another £20-30bn from the private sector. Cutting spending on future energy generation seems like an incredibly poor idea.
Successive governments back to Blair/Brown have shat on new nuclear with their prevaricating bullshit for over 20 years. This is why.
Sizewell C is ready to go and can build directly on the lessons learned from Hinkley Point C - it is a carbon copy.
There are 27 years left to achieve Net Zero and this plant decarbonises 7% of the grid.
It'd be utter insanity to cancel it.
The issue I have with sizewell C is that it's using a dead end technology like EPR which has yet to be proven to work reliably. Taishan is continuously closed for repairs, Flammanvile still hasn't opened and Olkiluoto still seems delayed indefinitely because of cracks in the reactor vessel. The issue I've got with Sizewell C isn't because it's nuclear, it's because it's EPR and that technology just doesn't seem like it works. For HPC we have EDF on the hook for all of the delays and eventual failure if they can't open it. Sizewell put the taxpayer on the hook for a reactor design that just seems flawed. We're much better off with the RR design (and RR shares are up today on the news of Sizewell C being cancelled) and investing in Moltex, First light fusion and a small next gen fusion reactor project rather than the white elephant that ITER is turning into.
Hold on why aren't we just doing a cfd deal for Sizewell C ?
Doing it as a RAB model allows private funding to buy in and lowers the WACC (a big part of HPC cost) and thus the cost to the taxpayer/consumer.
I know a lot about this project as am involved with it so feel free to DM for more.
But that assumes no construction cost increases and delays. Every single EPR has been late and over budget, I don't understand why anyone thinks it won't be exactly the same for Sizewell C.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
There are solutions. The problem is that the solutions break the rules of the system. And the nostrums of the same.
Next time you are talking to a member of the permanent machinery of government, try the idea that @rcs1000 and I have suggested of big fines for employers of illegals, combined with sharing the fine with the employee giving evidence against the employer. Plus indefinite leave to remain for the the employee.
The look of horror is... instructive.
We already have big fines. We haven't tried incentivising the employees though. I suspect the horror would be that there would be vast numbers of them.
For me the only thing that would work is a very large scale amnesty to get us past a system that is utterly and completely overwhelmed to one that can work in reasonable timescales and actually be implemented by the removal of those not found to be eligible.
Since retroactive law is an abomination, you would say that on date X it goes into force. Prosecution for offences before that date wouldn't get the fine share and indefinite leave to remain.
The horror was, as I was told (more than once), that they thought this would work.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
PB Tories massively overestimate how much the electorate are focused on dinghies as opposed to the cost of living crisis, NHS, Ukraine etc.
Cost of living crisis, 100 per cent for sure. NHS, yes (though for the nth time, health is devolved, and Labour are presiding over a mess in Wales).
But, Ukraine ... I don't believe you. The electorate are absolutely not focussed on Ukraine (though Pb.com is).
Been reading a biography of Napoleon the last few days. Now there was a man who could cut through things and make a lot of big changes happen very quickly indeed, that's the spirit we need!
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
There are solutions. The problem is that the solutions break the rules of the system. And the nostrums of the same.
Next time you are talking to a member of the permanent machinery of government, try the idea that @rcs1000 and I have suggested of big fines for employers of illegals, combined with sharing the fine with the employee giving evidence against the employer. Plus indefinite leave to remain for the the employee.
The look of horror is... instructive.
We already have big fines. We haven't tried incentivising the employees though. I suspect the horror would be that there would be vast numbers of them.
For me the only thing that would work is a very large scale amnesty to get us past a system that is utterly and completely overwhelmed to one that can work in reasonable timescales and actually be implemented by the removal of those not found to be eligible.
Since retroactive law is an abomination, you would say that on date X it goes into force. Prosecution for offences before that date wouldn't get the fine share and indefinite leave to remain.
The horror was, as I was told (more than once), that they thought this would work.
7 seats up in 6 wards, with a double election in South Cambs (Longstanton)
Croydon (Selsdon Vale & Forestdale) - Con died - Con Hold Lichfield (Chasetown) - Con resigned - Lab GAIN from Con Moray (Buckie) - LDm resigned - SNP GAIN from LDm Nottinghamshire (Eastwood) - Con died - Ind GAIN from Con South Cambridgeshire (Longstanton) - 2x LDm resigned - LDm hold, Con GAIN from LDm Wiltshire (Salisbury St Paul's) - Con died - LDm GAIN from Con
Good Week/Bad Week Index
Lab +76 SNP +51 Grn +12 LDm -29 Con -171
Adjusted Seat Value
Lab +1.3 SNP +0.9 Grn +0.2 LDm -0.5 Con -2.8
Con: Longstanton was a bit of good news, but more than outweighed by basically everything else. Lab: Only significant result was Chasetown LDm: St Paul's and Longstanton cancel each other out; Buckie was poor, but the LDm getting elected in the first place was an oddity.#, so a bit academic. Grn: Small positive scores in Selsdon and Longstanton
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
£1000 to jump the visa queue. In any other country that would be called paying a bribe, but many Brits just don't see this. "Sir" wouldn't be a crook.
It’s not a bribe if it’s paid to the Treasury, rather than an individual decision-maker. I suspect that in practice it’s for urgent business meetings, family funerals, and people fleeing their own country like Russia.
I've seen agencies offering fast-track visa processes that also involve the use of luxury lounges for only short times, with complimentary coffee, and having the visa brought round to where the applicant is staying - i.e. largely irrelevant benefits except for the short time between application and issue, and at a cost of several hundred pounds. Also I've seen embassies say you have to go through such an agency. (Many applicants even believe the agency is an official body, and the agency does nothing to disabuse naive applicants of that notion.) The embassy doesn't say you have to buy a luxury service of course but heavy pressure is put on applicants by the agency, and who will complain, and if they do complain who will they complain to? It's all crooked - it's the same everywhere. Some interests are making a fortune out of disruption caused by "W"FH, increased security, any kind of disruption.
The agencies can also be "connected" with middlemen who sell "temporary" hotel bookings to those who are naive enough to believe that you need to show bookings to get a visa. (You don't - but a lot of people are led to believe otherwise.) .
I suspect that in practice it’s for urgent business meetings, family funerals, and people fleeing their own country like Russia.
Rishi needs to start torpedoing Albanian dinghies in French territorial waters. Otherwise 'Nigel' will be the most popular babies' name (both male and female) by Christmas.
PB Tories massively overestimate how much the electorate are focused on dinghies as opposed to the cost of living crisis, NHS, Ukraine etc.
Cost of living crisis, 100 per cent for sure. NHS, yes (though for the nth time, health is devolved, and Labour are presiding over a mess in Wales).
But, Ukraine ... I don't believe you. The electorate are absolutely not focussed on Ukraine (though Pb.com is).
That last point is true, but possibly in significant part because (a) it's not a party political issue - both parties agree on helping "the goodies" against "the baddies", and (b) "the baddies" aren't obviously winning.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
That couldn't be more the opposite of the truth if it tried.
Yes America is not entirely reliable, but as the war in Ukraine has shown neither is Germany etc either.
Replacing one unreliable partner with another potentially less reliable partner isn't a change for the better.
What this war has shown is that what we need is not reliance upon "Europe" or "America" either of which can let us down, but as many independent like-minded allies as possible who are willing to work together.
Strengthening NATO and similar partnerships not any alternative institution.
If in 2025 the UK, France Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Canada and Australia are willing to work together, but Ireland, Germany, America and New Zealand are not then there should not be a reliance upon either America or Europe who can block collective self defence.
We should be working to build both indendence, self reliance and international partnerships without having any so called ally able to let us down and block defence without another member of the partnership being able to step into the void.
Been reading a biography of Napoleon the last few days. Now there was a man who could cut through things and make a lot of big changes happen very quickly indeed, that's the spirit we need!
Including a long lasting world-wide depression as the result of his wars.
Been reading a biography of Napoleon the last few days. Now there was a man who could cut through things and make a lot of big changes happen very quickly indeed, that's the spirit we need!
Including a long lasting world-wide depression as the result of his wars.
Well, I'm only part way though it - I assume it all ended well
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
Next thing that happens, someone reports the hotels are kept at 21C while the rest of us freeze.
Yes. Worst possible timing. And Farage looks like a man reborn on GB News. He has his mojo back
Was talking to my kids about Farage yesterday. They thought he was Asian because of his skin colour. I'm not sure he has cut through with teenagers in London.
London teenagers don’t vote. Older people in brexitland and southern England DO
Farage could ride this story to a place where he exerts political power, once again
And Liz Truss could surprise on the upside. And Russia could open a new front against Ukraine through Belarus. Anything could happen.
Suicidal over by Afghanistan when they were actually doing quite well. 2 run outs in an over. Ridiculous.
Aus will win, but they have a NRR problem
Aus are 168 + 448 = 616/76.3 & 601/80 NRR 0.55 (And dropping)
Essentially any win gets England through.
Cricinfo said at the end of the Aus innings: "Assuming England score 160 and win by a run, Australia need to keep Afghanistan down to 116 to stay ahead."
And they haven't.
Whats the weather forecast for our game tomorrow?
My worry is a no result washout would see us eliminated by a point.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
LOL! That will make the Guardian columnists choke on their tofu.
By the way, there’s currently a 6-8 week wait for ‘fast track’ tourist visas to the UK - something that’s rather disrupting my Christmas planning at the moment. Only a £1k ‘emergency’ visa is available at shorter notice.
£1000 to jump the visa queue. In any other country that would be called paying a bribe, but many Brits just don't see this. "Sir" wouldn't be a crook.
It’s not a bribe if it’s paid to the Treasury, rather than an individual decision-maker. I suspect that in practice it’s for urgent business meetings, family funerals, and people fleeing their own country like Russia.
I've seen agencies offering fast-track visa processes that also involve the use of luxury lounges for only short times, with complimentary coffee, and having the visa brought round to where the applicant is staying - i.e. largely irrelevant benefits except for the short time between application and issue, and at a cost of several hundred pounds. Also I've seen embassies say you have to go through such an agency. (Many applicants even believe the agency is an official body, and the agency does nothing to disabuse naive applicants of that notion.) The embassy doesn't say you have to buy a luxury service of course but heavy pressure is put on applicants by the agency, and who will complain, and if they do complain who will they complain to? It's all crooked - it's the same everywhere. Some interests are making a fortune out of disruption caused by "W"FH, increased security, any kind of disruption.
The agencies can also be "connected" with middlemen who sell "temporary" hotel bookings to those who are naive enough to believe that you need to show bookings to get a visa. (You don't - but a lot of people are led to believe otherwise.) .
I suspect that in practice it’s for urgent business meetings, family funerals, and people fleeing their own country like Russia.
Suicidal over by Afghanistan when they were actually doing quite well. 2 run outs in an over. Ridiculous.
Aus will win, but they have a NRR problem
Aus are 168 + 448 = 616/76.3 & 601/80 NRR 0.55 (And dropping)
Essentially any win gets England through.
Cricinfo said at the end of the Aus innings: "Assuming England score 160 and win by a run, Australia need to keep Afghanistan down to 116 to stay ahead."
And they haven't.
Whats the weather forecast for our game tomorrow?
My worry is a no result washout would see us eliminated by a point.
Suicidal over by Afghanistan when they were actually doing quite well. 2 run outs in an over. Ridiculous.
Aus will win, but they have a NRR problem
Aus are 168 + 448 = 616/76.3 & 601/80 NRR 0.55 (And dropping)
Essentially any win gets England through.
Cricinfo said at the end of the Aus innings: "Assuming England score 160 and win by a run, Australia need to keep Afghanistan down to 116 to stay ahead."
And they haven't.
Whats the weather forecast for our game tomorrow?
My worry is a no result washout would see us eliminated by a point.
🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’ 🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing 🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate 🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’ 🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty 🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour
I think they've got a cunning plan to try to blame boat people, particularly Albanians, for the cost of living crisis and inflation. They've not had enough success with blaming our woes on Covid, Ukraine and 'global forces'.
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
The latest Ipsos has D +1 Latest YouGov is Even Latest Morning Consult D+5
Some of these aren't Likely Voter polls, where Dems tend to do worse (eg latest Morning Consult Likely Voter poll is Even).
But not "all the polls" are pointing to a clear Republican win.
NB all figures taken from 538 listing, haven't double checked.
OK, so those are generic ballot polls - and aren't focused on the races in the swing districts or the likely voters - so I'm not too worried about those.
The 538 seat by seat forecast has 215 seats as solid or very likely for the Republicans, and they only need three more to win, with a further 11 leaning their way and 18 tossups.
90 times in 100 that will result in a Republican win.
It's the Senate I'm not confident about, not the House.
Yes, they are generic polls - which polls were you referring to when you mentioned "all the polls are pointing to a clear Republican win"?
No, some of those polls are Likely Voter polls - eg, the Big Village D+7 and YouGov Even are LV polls.
538 has 199 "Solid" R, and 16 "Likely R" - not "very likely". And 5 "Lean R", not 11, and 11 "Toss-up" not 18.
The 538 forecast ranges from 15% chance of Dems retaining House (Deluxe Model), to 16% (Classic Model), to 24% (Lite Model -polls only), so no 90% chance of a Republican win with their forecasts, at the moment.
Of course, you'll probably win your bet (as with most 1.1 bets), and I'd really like to wish you luck - but I'm hoping for a surprise Democrat win
Likely is a greater than 75% chance so it is very likely. Their forecast shows a republican win as an 85% chance - taking a seat by seat basis when they run the model - and given how Republican polling has firmed up in the last week (excepting those strange outliers) the momentum is in one direction and points to a >90% chance.
It's almost inconceivable they'll go backwards given they advanced in Nov 2022 and need only 6 x more seats to take the House.
You are letting your heart rule your head. But if you disagree there's fantastic value for you in backing the 200-209 seat and 210-219 republican seat bands on Betfair.
I don't know enough to say if there is value in those bands, don't even know what the odds are (German location).
I was just surprised at someone putting a grand on something based on "all the polls", when a very quick check shows it's really not all the polls. And then arguing that it is a "90 times in a hundred" probability (which may be true - but that wouldn't make 1.1 a value bet, especially if you have to pay commission). And that "90 times in a hundred" was based on misreading the 538 forecast about how many seats were R lean (actually 5 rather than 11 as you wrote), and Toss-up (actually 11 not 18) - presumably the actual figures would revise your own "90 times in a hundred" estimate down a bit?
Plus, several forecasts seem to make it between 15-30% chance of Democrats retaining the house. Maybe there are good reasons to think they are all wrong, but I'd want better arguments than inaccurate claims about "all the polls", and inaccuracies about other forecasts, to convince me of that.
And to go back to the 538 forecast for a moment - it is the "deluxe model" that has 85% Republican, the model based only on current polling is only 74%.
538 has a handy filter. They rate each polling company A to C. Neither Big Village nor Morning Consult rates as A.
Taking the firms that rate as A- and above, the nine most recent polls have 6 Republican leads, 2 Democratic leads and 1 tie, for an average 2.4% Republican lead.
The Democrats led by 2.8% in 2020. So, only a small drop from that would see the Republicans take the House.
The Democrats' only hope now is a systemic polling error.
Or just use 538's own polling average, which takes all these factors into account, and is handily shown in the thread header - currently R 1.2% ahead. Other polling averages are available.
But in any case, an "only hope" of polling average being out by a relatively small amount might add up to at least a 10% chance, no?
I don't know whether 1.1 at BF on Republicans winning the House is value or not, it's not something I'm going to bet on, but I haven't heard anything to convince me that it is. And I was impressed by what seemed like a fairly casual bet of a grand - although that maybe just isn't a lot of money for some people!
I'm confident in my analysis and my bet. You seem to be more interested in pedantry and one-upmanship.
If you want to make a useful contribution to betting discussion next time try to be like Sean Fear and post additional information and not be a twat about it.
On the contrary, I have simply posted information, and you have posted a bunch of inaccuracies, followed by (predictable) abuse.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
One thing that is having a blind eye turned to it is the involvement of established native British criminal gangs (and in some places Irish ones, but not so much in Kent) alongside Albanian etc. gangs in the business of illegal immigration and slavery.
Who do people think runs a town like Dover when it's nighttime?
The native criminal underworld has a big slice of the illegal immigration action (even as they favour the far right whenever they poke their toes into politics) - right the way across the employment spectrum whether it's the provision of services to hotels or courier companies or of labour for various jobs in farming and distribution.
But we shouldn't expect SKS to say smash organised crime, let's clean up the country.
Been reading a biography of Napoleon the last few days. Now there was a man who could cut through things and make a lot of big changes happen very quickly indeed, that's the spirit we need!
Including a long lasting world-wide depression as the result of his wars.
Well, I'm only part way though it - I assume it all ended well
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
There are solutions. The problem is that the solutions break the rules of the system. And the nostrums of the same.
Next time you are talking to a member of the permanent machinery of government, try the idea that @rcs1000 and I have suggested of big fines for employers of illegals, combined with sharing the fine with the employee giving evidence against the employer. Plus indefinite leave to remain for the the employee.
The look of horror is... instructive.
We already have big fines. We haven't tried incentivising the employees though. I suspect the horror would be that there would be vast numbers of them.
For me the only thing that would work is a very large scale amnesty to get us past a system that is utterly and completely overwhelmed to one that can work in reasonable timescales and actually be implemented by the removal of those not found to be eligible.
Since retroactive law is an abomination, you would say that on date X it goes into force. Prosecution for offences before that date wouldn't get the fine share and indefinite leave to remain.
The horror was, as I was told (more than once), that they thought this would work.
There's no retrospective law issue here since anyone committing such an offence is already breaking the law, and is already subject to not just fines but imprisonment too.
The only thing that would be changing is giving people an incentive to cooperate with law enforcement, rather than a reason to hide from them. But that doesn't violate respective law change principles as a knowing law breaker can't turn around and say "that's unfair, I knew I was breaking the law but didn't think anyone would snitch."
If someone commits a murder the Police may offer a reward after the fact for anyone who gives evidence leading to a conviction. That doesn't require a law change and is after the fact. Same here. We aren't suggesting a new offence, just a reward for aiding prosecution of pre existing offences.
There was an interesting contribution to the Adrian Chiles program yesterday. A woman who was employed to support victims of modern slavery explained how it worked. If someone from Albania has got their ride on credit they are "enslaved" until they pay that debt back because they have to account to the person providing the credit. These people seem to have more effective remedies than those provided by the civil courts and they are at risk.
If they make a claim that they are being trafficked in this way the authorities are not allowed to do anything for 45 days whilst they assess the claim. This is a provisional assessment and has a very low standard of proof. A final assessment by a suitably qualified person is required. She said that she had young men who had been waiting for more than 3 years for such a final assessment. She was lamenting the fact that these men were being left in limbo for so long and she has a point but most people will lament that we have created a system that just does not function or is incapable of reaching determinations within a reasonable period of time.
All trivially sorted by the Home Secretary, if any of them ever wished to actually tackle the problem rather than highlight the problem for political gain.
It could only be "trivially sorted" if the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was repealed. That Act was introduced by a HS, Mrs May no less, and she claims it was her greatest contribution. The Act focused much more on those doing the trafficking than those who were being trafficked and the implications of the assessment process do not seem to have been thought through.
These are difficult problems. How do we differentiate between far eastern women locked in cages and used for sex and young Albanian men forced to work on Cannabis farms or, for that matter, also used for sex? As with asylum we would be dismayed as to how many of these victims actually qualify under the rights we have given them.
There are two parts to this. One decide which groups we want to let in and adjust the laws to match that, including leaving treaties if needed. Secondly resource it so we don't wait 45 days whilst little to nothing happens because no-one is available to do the job.
I have seen no evidence of any recent Home Secretary doing much on either, instead they love to moan about the courts correctly interpreting the laws and treaties that the governments have written, and the lawyers that represent people within the law.
I agree that the current asylum rules are simply not sustainable and have argued for that on here many times. If. however, the victims of modern slavery are not given some protection what are the prospects of such crimes ever coming to light?
I am not an expert on modern slavery and don't have a strong view on what the limits should be for us accepting related asylum claims. I am content for the government to make an assessment that they believe in, as long as it matches the law.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society - failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
You are seriously underestimating the complexity of the "fix" and will no doubt be disappointed when the next Labour government struggles in exactly the same way with the same problems. There is nothing trivial about coming up with working solutions: the short answer is that there aren't any.
I have zero expectations of Labour solving it for the same reason I have zero expectation of this government doing so. It is not in the interests of whoever is Home Secretary to fix.
Not sure cancelling the new Sizewell power station is a good idea.
Won't happen.
The power station, or the cancellation of it?
If it’s to be cancelled, then at least announcing what will replace it at the same time, might be seen as good politics at a time of record high energy bills!
Cancellation. Just the Treasury chestbeating.
There are leaks to the media day-by-day at the moment as they look at all potential tax and spending options.
Everything will need to be "reviewed" as part of a top to bottom exercise but this won't go anywhere. Sunak and Macron shook hands on it only 7 days ago.
Oh, I completely agree that there needs to be a zero-based spending review over the winter, with absolutely everything on the table - but it needs to be done in a coherent manner, finishing with a single announcement before the start of the financial year.
Dripping negative spending stories out one at a time, won’t do much for the government’s popularity. Do it all at once, to avoid every single-issue pressure group having their own day in the sun.
It will also damage investment.
Sizewell C relies on private sector investment and the government had already made the commitment.
This raises huge questions about the UK's reliability and consistency.
The real question is what the government will replace it with, we still have a huge energy deficit in 10 years time, cancelling Sizewell C may be a good decision because the EPR is clearly not good enough, bit we still need reliable energy to replace the existing nuclear reactors that will be decommissioned by then. I'd like to see a firm commitment to the modular reactors from RR and wind+storage. By firm commitment, I mean £8-10bn in state investment and another £20-30bn from the private sector. Cutting spending on future energy generation seems like an incredibly poor idea.
Successive governments back to Blair/Brown have shat on new nuclear with their prevaricating bullshit for over 20 years. This is why.
Sizewell C is ready to go and can build directly on the lessons learned from Hinkley Point C - it is a carbon copy.
There are 27 years left to achieve Net Zero and this plant decarbonises 7% of the grid.
It'd be utter insanity to cancel it.
The issue I have with sizewell C is that it's using a dead end technology like EPR which has yet to be proven to work reliably. Taishan is continuously closed for repairs, Flammanvile still hasn't opened and Olkiluoto still seems delayed indefinitely because of cracks in the reactor vessel. The issue I've got with Sizewell C isn't because it's nuclear, it's because it's EPR and that technology just doesn't seem like it works. For HPC we have EDF on the hook for all of the delays and eventual failure if they can't open it. Sizewell put the taxpayer on the hook for a reactor design that just seems flawed. We're much better off with the RR design (and RR shares are up today on the news of Sizewell C being cancelled) and investing in Moltex, First light fusion and a small next gen fusion reactor project rather than the white elephant that ITER is turning into.
Hold on why aren't we just doing a cfd deal for Sizewell C ?
Doing it as a RAB model allows private funding to buy in and lowers the WACC (a big part of HPC cost) and thus the cost to the taxpayer/consumer.
I know a lot about this project as am involved with it so feel free to DM for more.
But that assumes no construction cost increases and delays. Every single EPR has been late and over budget, I don't understand why anyone thinks it won't be exactly the same for Sizewell C.
It's replicated (design and supply chain) so can avoid a lot of the first time integration issues that Hinkley Point C experienced.
“The North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-on-Trent. This hotel has just become fully occupied with illegal migrant overspill from Manston. Incredibly, local homeless youngsters continue to sleep rough directly outside the hotel entrance. There is nothing that one can add to that.”
If it turns out they get a Full English every morning too, we could be looking at a very lively Question Time with Fiona Bruce.
You know you are in England when the dinners are all awful and the breakfasts, even in inexpensive places, are things where you can fill up for the next 48 hours taking in 6,000 calories, all of it reasonably OK in quality.
Loads of less expensive places would be improved by offering the breakfast service in the evenings as well.
Do Albanians like black pudding?
I have a theory about the return of the English Breakfast.
Many of the cafes were taken over by immigrants, who didn't realise that they were supposed to used Walls sausages, bacon entirely made of fat, and coffee that was instant, boiled slowly over days.
Instead they started using proper ingredients.
A local one is run by a very, very Italian chap* - magnificent. Across the road is an old style one, run by an original British couple (both ancient). The British one (entirely filled by construction workers, and other working class) provides fairly inedible food. The Italian one - wealthier people and the food is magnificent.
*He seems to be a supporter of the er... more interesting Italian parties, though.
There's a place for quality in cafes, but those better ingredients cost a lot more, and a business that desires to be profitable will therefore charge a lot more. It seems like both ends of the market are bekng catered for where you are, which is great.
I think that varies a lot depending on where the cafe is. In a place with high labour and rental costs the impact of ingredients on the overall cost base could be pretty small. I know the old rule of thumb was 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 staff, 1/3 overheads but I expect somewhere like London it's more like 20:40:40. The cost of energy will be affecting this equation everywhere too.
That's why urban coffee shops are so expensive. The coffee and milk are cheap as chips so the £2.80 for your flat white is largely paying for staff, rent and rates, heating and other bills. And most of those places are still making losses. That's why some takeaways are still relatively cheap too, because they use free (family) labour.
Comments
Quite a few people were astounded to find that, in London, you are paying for the property, the staff, the lighting, the internet. The food is essentially a freebie - if they simply gave you a glass of tap water, the price would be similar....
SNP +4.1 points
Con +2.9
Lab +10.0
LD +2.8
Ind -19.8
I was just surprised at someone putting a grand on something based on "all the polls", when a very quick check shows it's really not all the polls. And then arguing that it is a "90 times in a hundred" probability (which may be true - but that wouldn't make 1.1 a value bet, especially if you have to pay commission). And that "90 times in a hundred" was based on misreading the 538 forecast about how many seats were R lean (actually 5 rather than 11 as you wrote), and Toss-up (actually 11 not 18) - presumably the actual figures would revise your own "90 times in a hundred" estimate down a bit?
Plus, several forecasts seem to make it between 15-30% chance of Democrats retaining the house. Maybe there are good reasons to think they are all wrong, but I'd want better arguments than inaccurate claims about "all the polls", and inaccuracies about other forecasts, to convince me of that.
And to go back to the 538 forecast for a moment - it is the "deluxe model" that has 85% Republican, the model based only on current polling is only 74%.
Must be a story there.
My only hope is that the younger age group who say they will vote in large numbers this time actually do so. Also, that the very high number of early voters have a big enough effect to keep the Dems in power at least in the Senate.
It could be that these factors, possibly with a disproportionate female turnout might just prove the polls wrong.
But then, I always was an optimist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-34IOpjos0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwsxaYGJgyM
The name ‘Nigel’ is now extinct – yet another thing we can probably blame on Brexit
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-baby-names-nigel-popularity-b1940868.html
I cannot read it, but another site says it has dropped from a top 100 name to around the 2500th most popular.
My name is on a similar trajectory having plummeted from a period of popularity in the 80s and 90s, but still much better than that.
I went for lunch yesterday at an American Diner here in Port Talbot. It was expensive and exceptionally poor. I know where to go to get something decent, but calling in at an unfamiliar restaurant invariably ends in tears.
The UK is not the Paris Latin Quarter Leon would have us believe.
What I find completely unacceptable is the government making the rules, then:
- complaining about others upholding their rules weakening trust in courts and dividing society
- failing to fund the system resulting not just in further personal stress for those involved but also ending up in even higher costs, such as £600 hotels or hosting people for 3 years rather than 3 weeks, so we pay more than required in the first place
But as I say, even many of those who find Braverman incompetent like her because they feel she is on her side. There is no upside to her in trying to fix this, so it won't happen.
Taking the firms that rate as A- and above, the nine most recent polls have 6 Republican leads, 2 Democratic leads and 1 tie, for an average 2.4% Republican lead.
The Democrats led by 2.8% in 2020. So, only a small drop from that would see the Republicans take the House.
The Democrats' only hope now is a systemic polling error.
This is a drift from our Polish chums at Nightride.
https://youtu.be/F7z_lgzAACg?t=64
It is quite clear that WTH requires different work processes. Software development, for example, has largely been using Agile. Which is designed around the concept of teams with remote working. Even spread across the world.
It would be perfectly possible to do WTH in many jobs - but setting it up and making it work requires thought, effort and skill.
But in any case, an "only hope" of polling average being out by a relatively small amount might add up to at least a 10% chance, no?
I don't know whether 1.1 at BF on Republicans winning the House is value or not, it's not something I'm going to bet on, but I haven't heard anything to convince me that it is. And I was impressed by what seemed like a fairly casual bet of a grand - although that maybe just isn't a lot of money for some people!
Most of the UK public sector appears to have started WFH in March 2020, and changed nothing since then.
Next time you are talking to a member of the permanent machinery of government, try the idea that @rcs1000 and I have suggested of big fines for employers of illegals, combined with sharing the fine with the employee giving evidence against the employer. Plus indefinite leave to remain for the the employee.
The look of horror is... instructive.
I am not at all surprised by the big SNP vote and the tiny LD one.
Here's one reason: "Hindsight can be rosy, but Obama’s record of helping down-ballot Democrats is … less than stellar. In fact, Obama presided over the loss of more House, Senate, state legislative and governors’ seats than any president in U.S. history.
When Obama took office, Democrats were on top of the world. They had a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — the largest since 1979. And they had 257 seats in the House — the largest majority since 1993. Eight years later, after the 2016 elections, Democrats held just 48 senate seats and 194 House seats — a net loss of 12 Senate seats and 63 House seats."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/02/barack-obama-closer-lost-downballot-democrats/
While Obama was president, Democrats lost many of their competent moderates, who might otherwise now be governors, senators, and potential presidents.
(Trump has had a similar, though weaker, effect on the Republican Party.)
But, Ukraine ... I don't believe you. The electorate are absolutely not focussed on Ukraine (though Pb.com is).
Do you have any actual polls ?
For me the only thing that would work is a very large scale amnesty to get us past a system that is utterly and completely overwhelmed to one that can work in reasonable timescales and actually be implemented by the removal of those not found to be eligible.
I know a lot about this project as am involved with it so feel free to DM for more.
If you want to make a useful contribution to betting discussion next time try to be like Sean Fear and post additional information and not be a twat about it.
'22 need to replace him ASAP
The horror was, as I was told (more than once), that they thought this would work.
Here’s the YouGov issues polling: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country Respondents are asked to name 3 issues. The economy is at 70%, health at 43%, the environment at 27% and then immigration/asylum at 22%. Housing and Brexit come next.
Confirmed article this morning an error and it's now been updated.
Sizewell C going ahead.
7 seats up in 6 wards, with a double election in South Cambs (Longstanton)
Croydon (Selsdon Vale & Forestdale) - Con died - Con Hold
Lichfield (Chasetown) - Con resigned - Lab GAIN from Con
Moray (Buckie) - LDm resigned - SNP GAIN from LDm
Nottinghamshire (Eastwood) - Con died - Ind GAIN from Con
South Cambridgeshire (Longstanton) - 2x LDm resigned - LDm hold, Con GAIN from LDm
Wiltshire (Salisbury St Paul's) - Con died - LDm GAIN from Con
Good Week/Bad Week Index
Lab +76
SNP +51
Grn +12
LDm -29
Con -171
Adjusted Seat Value
Lab +1.3
SNP +0.9
Grn +0.2
LDm -0.5
Con -2.8
Con: Longstanton was a bit of good news, but more than outweighed by basically everything else.
Lab: Only significant result was Chasetown
LDm: St Paul's and Longstanton cancel each other out; Buckie was poor, but the LDm getting elected in the first place was an oddity.#, so a bit academic.
Grn: Small positive scores in Selsdon and Longstanton
The agencies can also be "connected" with middlemen who sell "temporary" hotel bookings to those who are naive enough to believe that you need to show bookings to get a visa. (You don't - but a lot of people are led to believe otherwise.)
. .
"£1000 and we'll get you out of Russia fast"?
Yes America is not entirely reliable, but as the war in Ukraine has shown neither is Germany etc either.
Replacing one unreliable partner with another potentially less reliable partner isn't a change for the better.
What this war has shown is that what we need is not reliance upon "Europe" or "America" either of which can let us down, but as many independent like-minded allies as possible who are willing to work together.
Strengthening NATO and similar partnerships not any alternative institution.
If in 2025 the UK, France Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Canada and Australia are willing to work together, but Ireland, Germany, America and New Zealand are not then there should not be a reliance upon either America or Europe who can block collective self defence.
We should be working to build both indendence, self reliance and international partnerships without having any so called ally able to let us down and block defence without another member of the partnership being able to step into the void.
My worry is a no result washout would see us eliminated by a point.
"£1000 and we'll get you out of Russia fast"?
£10,000,000 and we send these guys to get you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVXv16OyGr8
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/r3gx2b7f8#?date=2022-11-05
The rest of the week, however...
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/r3gx2b7f8#?date=2022-11-05
Who do people think runs a town like Dover when it's nighttime?
The native criminal underworld has a big slice of the illegal immigration action (even as they favour the far right whenever they poke their toes into politics) - right the way across the employment spectrum whether it's the provision of services to hotels or courier companies or of labour for various jobs in farming and distribution.
But we shouldn't expect SKS to say smash organised crime, let's clean up the country.
checked in to a tax payer funded Novotel
played like Australia
The only thing that would be changing is giving people an incentive to cooperate with law enforcement, rather than a reason to hide from them. But that doesn't violate respective law change principles as a knowing law breaker can't turn around and say "that's unfair, I knew I was breaking the law but didn't think anyone would snitch."
If someone commits a murder the Police may offer a reward after the fact for anyone who gives evidence leading to a conviction. That doesn't require a law change and is after the fact. Same here. We aren't suggesting a new offence, just a reward for aiding prosecution of pre existing offences.