"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.
Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it. But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.
This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?
Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.
Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.
So words can hurt you? 🤔
Um, no.
So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?
You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.
There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.
You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?
I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.
Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.
Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.
Let's trim a few words out to make it crystal clear what you are saying.
"Words can have consequences. Those consequences can include death".
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Someone says something nasty to you. OK, that hurts emotionally. No argument there. But do you choose to let it rule you, or do you choose to try to get over it? Only in the former case do you turn yourself into a victim. And even then you aren't justified in trying to get somebody sacked.
Not everyone has a choice.
Anymore than others have a choice whether to keep their job or not.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much tax they would pay cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
I send my daughter ms to private schools.
The biggest difference, is not just the class sizes. But the pastoral care and education tailored to the individual. For example - just the other day people were talking about SENS. At both schools, they train the staff and employ specialists.
The specialists at both schools do free work in the local state schools - x hours a week.
Altogether, both schools do more charitable work than many so called charities.
One has just reached the target of 25% of intake on 100% bursaries, paid for out of an American style foundation.
Got to say I think you will find that's the exception rather than the rule.
They are both pretty high end schools - though, being in London, they don’t have the really over the top facilities. No space.
Some “charities” spend less than 10% of turnover on their charitable object. A school would trivially meet that by providing sports facilities for free to local state schools.
One charity I used to know spent nothing on charity. They lobbied to get money from governments, in order to lobby governments to get money….
You’d think basic accounting requirements & some policy on grants would prevent this kind of thing. If a charity fails to spend (say) 80% of it’s income on actually delivering it’s professed purpose, then it shouldn’t get a single government grant.
Is the real problem is that a charity can have something vague like “raising awareness” as its purpose, which means lobbying for more cash to pay more lobbiests to “raise awareness” with politicians counts as valid expenditure?
80% would shut down just about every charity. Many of the big ones spend a fraction of that on actual charity work.
Must admit that I’m failing to see the problem here. If you can’t spend 80% of your income on actual charitable work then you’re not a charity, you’re a grift in charitable drag.
Personally I am fine with this idea.
Politically, burning down most of the charity sector would guarantee a firestorm. And hence will never happen
Another thing to add to the list regarding Cyclefree's comment on ideas to cut.
There's plenty out there that can and should be cut. That the politicians don't want to as it will be unpopular, is their responsibility, they either take unpopular but necessary decisions and show leadership as to why it is necessary, or they do their job badly.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.
Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it. But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.
This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?
Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.
Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.
So words can hurt you? 🤔
Um, no.
So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?
You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.
There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.
You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?
I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.
Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.
Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.
Let's trim a few words out to make it crystal clear what you are saying.
"Words can have consequences. Those consequences can include death".
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Someone says something nasty to you. OK, that hurts emotionally. No argument there. But do you choose to let it rule you, or do you choose to try to get over it? Only in the former case do you turn yourself into a victim. And even then you aren't justified in trying to get somebody sacked.
Not everyone has a choice.
Anymore than others have a choice whether to keep their job or not.
How can someone not have a choice whether they let a temporary hurt rule them or they try to get over it?
Surrey (Sunbury Common & Ashford Common) - LDm GAIN from Con Arun (Arundel & Walberton) - Grn hold King's Lynn & West Norfolk (Gaywood Clock) - Lab hold (unopposed) Norfolk (Gaywood North & Central) - LDm GAIN from Con Southampton (Bitterne) - Lab GAIN from Con Waverley (Chiddingfold & Dunsfold) - LDm GAIN from Con West Lothian (Broxburn, Uphall & Winchburgh) - Lab hold
Good Week/Bad Week Index
LDm +183 Lab +126 Grn +57 SNP +4 Con -366
Adjusted Seat Value
LDm +3.1 Lab +2.8 Grn +0.9 SNP +0.1 Con -6.1
I see the LAB Gain was a 14 vote victory
If I was Labour, I'd be very pleased with the Southampton win (got a big swing last time out, and another decent swing on top of that this time to push it over the edge), and with the West Lothian win (overtook a big SNP first preference lead from last time), and more than a little concerned about being overtaken by the LibDems in Norfolk. But you do you.
Surrey (Sunbury Common & Ashford Common) - LDm GAIN from Con Arun (Arundel & Walberton) - Grn hold King's Lynn & West Norfolk (Gaywood Clock) - Lab hold (unopposed) Norfolk (Gaywood North & Central) - LDm GAIN from Con Southampton (Bitterne) - Lab GAIN from Con Waverley (Chiddingfold & Dunsfold) - LDm GAIN from Con West Lothian (Broxburn, Uphall & Winchburgh) - Lab hold
Surrey (Sunbury Common & Ashford Common) - LDm GAIN from Con Arun (Arundel & Walberton) - Grn hold King's Lynn & West Norfolk (Gaywood Clock) - Lab hold (unopposed) Norfolk (Gaywood North & Central) - LDm GAIN from Con Southampton (Bitterne) - Lab GAIN from Con Waverley (Chiddingfold & Dunsfold) - LDm GAIN from Con West Lothian (Broxburn, Uphall & Winchburgh) - Lab hold
Good Week/Bad Week Index
LDm +183 Lab +126 Grn +57 SNP +4 Con -366
Adjusted Seat Value
LDm +3.1 Lab +2.8 Grn +0.9 SNP +0.1 Con -6.1
I see the LAB Gain was a 14 vote victory
Yes, they will just have to make do with an 11,000 vote victory in a seat that was held by the Tories as recently as April 2014.
The only possible one is to prevent a large Labour majority. Governments with large majorities and no effective opposition become complacent, arrogant and hubristic.
We are destined for more years of poor governance.
There's one very good reason to vote Tory, to stop Labour's class warfare on children with VAT changes on private schools.
Another bloody Brexit bonus, the CJEU wouldn't have allowed Labour's assault on parents.
Not a good reason for the overwhelming majority who wonder why the wealthiest parents enjoy a tax break that is leaving money on the table when their taxes are going to go up and their kids' schools are facing cutbacks. 'Class War' might've worked as a message if this was just Labour making a tax grab out of the blue. It doesn't when part of the Conservative message is one where everyone needs to make sacrifices - as effectively becomes 'everyone needs to make sacrifices except those who can spend £20,000+ a year to give their kid a perceived advantage'.
FWIW I think it's possible that Labour have made a mistake if they are serious about the VAT thing on schools. Not because it's wrong - schools should only have charity status if they are genuinely open to all on a needs blind basis, which very few could do - but because the policy takes on a massive establishment who, without publicising it, exclusively use these institutions. This includes vast numbers of the elite left and liberal establishment as well as centre-right and non-aligned.
This is a fantastically powerful lobby, with huge amounts of deniable power.
Private school are more non-profit organisations than charities I would say. If they were treated as limited companies and therefore liable to corporation tax I'm not sure how much tax they would pay cus every one I'm familiar with (the non-fancy ones - they are not all Etons) is skint.
I send my daughter ms to private schools.
The biggest difference, is not just the class sizes. But the pastoral care and education tailored to the individual. For example - just the other day people were talking about SENS. At both schools, they train the staff and employ specialists.
The specialists at both schools do free work in the local state schools - x hours a week.
Altogether, both schools do more charitable work than many so called charities.
One has just reached the target of 25% of intake on 100% bursaries, paid for out of an American style foundation.
Got to say I think you will find that's the exception rather than the rule.
Incredible achievement to have 25% intake on 100% bursaries. According to the Independent Schools Council, in 2022 there was £480m of means-tested fee assistance and nearly half of those receiving this got more than half of their fees paid.
There are about 550,000 students in private schools, so that's about £870/pupil.... with average fees probably 10-15x that, we could safely say it's a small minority who receive means-tested scholarships.
The reasoning behind it is interesting - the school thinks that there is an increasing problem as the fees rise of isolation. The schools are becoming, increasing, only open to the mega rich. Which the mega rich parents themselves worry about.
The school also deliberately structured their intake to not be 100% child geniuses who could take their A levels at 10 etc.. they think that a student body entirely constructed of hyper achievers is actually problematic.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.
Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it. But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.
This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?
Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.
Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.
So words can hurt you? 🤔
Um, no.
So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?
You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.
There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.
You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?
I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.
Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.
Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.
Sticks and stones is something you teach kids to help them learn resilience. It seems many adults have bizarrely interpreted as some kind of divine law. It is patently false, words can and do hurt humans immensely.
This is deeper than betting with money. It's entire salaries, livelihoods, careers.
The mass resignations tell you everything.
They know.
It's a bit early for that yet. Losing the Saj will be a blow, but if he doesn't want to be Bufton Hasbeen, it's sensible. Much the same goes for Chloe Smith- plus there's nothing like a brush with death to make you reconsider your priorities.
Wragg and Davison are in a bit of a different boat, though neither of them looks like they have much chance of winning their seats next time anyway.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.
Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it. But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.
This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?
Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.
Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.
So words can hurt you? 🤔
Um, no.
So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?
You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.
There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.
You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?
I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.
Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.
Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.
Let's trim a few words out to make it crystal clear what you are saying.
"Words can have consequences. Those consequences can include death".
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Someone says something nasty to you. OK, that hurts emotionally. No argument there. But do you choose to let it rule you, or do you choose to try to get over it? Only in the former case do you turn yourself into a victim. And even then you aren't justified in trying to get somebody sacked.
Not everyone has a choice.
Anymore than others have a choice whether to keep their job or not.
How can someone not have a choice whether they let a temporary hurt rule them or they try to get over it?
Because, especially if it is sustained, it can be overwhelming so there ends up being no choice involved.
Its like anything else. A small cut, may lead to a small lost of blood, but that will heal and you will be OK. A small bit of pressure applied against you physically may lead to a bruise, but that will heal and you will be OK. A small bit of water consumed may be refreshing and keep you hydrated. A small bit of pressure applied against you emotionally may lead to hurt feelings, but that will heal and you will be OK.
But too much of any of them can be fatal. Too much blood loss, too much water leading to fatal water intoxication, too much pressure leading to broken bones, organs, or mental wellbeing that can lead to death.
The swing in Chester of 14% to Labour was actually better for the Tories than the 18% swing to Labour in the latest YouGov poll yesterday.
So while not a great result for the Tories and good for Labour it was actually not as disastrous for Sunak as some of the latest polls would suggest
Glad I am not alone in seeing this “disaster for the Tories” as completely over hyped. It’s just not there in the pseudological facts.
1) mid term by elections your voters don’t come out. You can get results just like this even when national polls are much closer together. 1b) Chester Turnout usually 75% plus, and history in seat points towards a labour seat not strong Tory one, how does anyone prove votes have switched here not just stay at home? Without switchers there is argument Labour is underperforming in real votes compared to polls, Labour underperforming turning polls into real votes with switchers, as they certainly have in real votes throughout 2022 have they not? This Labour under performance in real elections v polls, was the second main take out from 2022 locals, after main take out of Lib Dem better than expected performance. 2) did Tories give their voters reason for protest against them though by staying home? As they have told the world their Tory predecessors in recent Tory cabinets have broken the asylum system and made mistakes which crashed the economy, they sure have given voters a reason to give them a mid term slap. Have they not? But with two years to come out of mid term and build to election, what does this result actually say about what is certain to happen at that next General Election?
This it's just staying at home in by-elections narrative means nothing is wrong doesn't fit historically.
Echibit A: That 1994 Dudley West by-election, the greatest Con-Lab swing since WW2, and one of the augers of a Blair PMship.
Numerically, the Labour vote went DOWN from 28,940 to 28,400. Yes, Labour lost votes.
So. setting a bar for Labour to actually put on numerical votes in a by-election - I just don't know if it has ever happened.
I think you are basically coming to conclusion we can’t draw clear conclusions from mid term by election exactly what will happen two years later, thanks for your support in this.
The bottom line being, how much is it a partys vote staying home in real votes, when polls suggest swings based on vote transfers
Hint. Polls don’t clearly show swings - they are stuffed with don’t know won’t say.
I wouldn't say that. By-elections are indicative rather than predictive and overstate the swings likely to be seen in a GE - a little for Labour, a lot for LD.
But t you seem to be going to the extreme that they carry no useful information, and that's not right either - this does show Labour in a good position and the Tories in a poor one.
The evidence of polls (good for Labour), approval ratings (decent for Labour), and by and local elections (by elections good, local elections lagging a bit for Labour*) and the non-electoral political weather (bad for Tories) need to be considered in the round when trying to read an upcoming GE.
This doesn't feel like 2015 (which I called correctly on late PB evidence).
* I wonder if locally Labour still suffer a fracturing of its local vote from the swing to Corbyn and back again displacing centrists and lefties successively. Personally, I was a consistent Labour LE voter up until 2015, but with a strong Green local option I switched to them in Corbyn's leadership and have never returned LE-wise even though I'm back in the GE fold.
As a result, I'm not sure how heavily to weigh local election Labour underperformance.
Comments
Anymore than others have a choice whether to keep their job or not.
There's plenty out there that can and should be cut. That the politicians don't want to as it will be unpopular, is their responsibility, they either take unpopular but necessary decisions and show leadership as to why it is necessary, or they do their job badly.
I really do hope Musk changes his mind and does the right thing - the employees deserve that. But it'll be fun as hell if he doesn't.
https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1598487532764798983/photo/1
Should improve with more spin coming into the game & no extended lunches for Friday prayers on days 3, 4 and 5.
The school also deliberately structured their intake to not be 100% child geniuses who could take their A levels at 10 etc.. they think that a student body entirely constructed of hyper achievers is actually problematic.
Wragg and Davison are in a bit of a different boat, though neither of them looks like they have much chance of winning their seats next time anyway.
Its like anything else. A small cut, may lead to a small lost of blood, but that will heal and you will be OK.
A small bit of pressure applied against you physically may lead to a bruise, but that will heal and you will be OK.
A small bit of water consumed may be refreshing and keep you hydrated.
A small bit of pressure applied against you emotionally may lead to hurt feelings, but that will heal and you will be OK.
But too much of any of them can be fatal. Too much blood loss, too much water leading to fatal water intoxication, too much pressure leading to broken bones, organs, or mental wellbeing that can lead to death.
Great boots in the avatar too.