meanwhile, back at the ranch, in the great Wolverine State -
Politico.com - How Democrats disarmed a brewing Senate battle in Michigan Debbie Stabenow is headed toward retirement with a concerted plan that’s falling very much into place, with Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) all but clearing the field so far.
What looked at first like a Democratic free-for all for Michigan’s open Senate seat is nearly over already. Which is exactly what Debbie Stabenow and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wanted.
The retiring Stabenow has personally steered several of those interested in taking her Mitten State seat toward different positions that will soon open up. And as a result, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) has largely cleared the field in what could have otherwise been a messy Senate primary.
So while the primary itself is more than a year away, there’s a growing feeling that party leaders have avoided a pile-up in a race that Democrats absolutely need to win to keep their majority next fall.
“If we have lots of talented people and they’re all running for different positions, then we get the benefit,” Stabenow, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, said in an interview. “So that’s what I’ve been saying: ‘Think about how to best keep this great talent going in the state.’ And you don’t do it by everybody running for the same seat.”
Behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Stabenow and Schumer, a former Senate campaign arm chief himself, helped quell fears of a messy fight over succeeding Stabenow in a must-win battleground state. But it’s less likely that Democrats can or even want to similarly smooth internal headaches over other open Senate seats — simply put, the party is fine with a chaotic primary in deep-blue California but resolved early on not to let the GOP capitalize on a disorganized clamor in Michigan. . . .
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans are weighing their own similar adaptation after enduring several tough primaries in 2022 that left their nominees with little money and factionalized party bases. . . .
But it remains to be seen whether the GOP will have the same success as Democrats had in Michigan.
So wanting to show some humanity is now classed by Braverman as being a naive do-gooder ! What a wretched human being.
You never answer the question of why people are trying to migrate here from a safe country, France.
Although the French could turn that around, and ask why people are trying to migrate there from a safe country, Italy.
They're not; they're trying to come to the UK.
France is the service station.
France lets far more in than the U.K. We’re not that special.
France is 4 times bigger
No it’s not. Metropolitan France covers a land area of 543,940 km2 (210,020 sq mi) while that of the U.K. is 242,495 square kilometres (93,628 sq mi)
Anyway, that’s not the point. Casino was implying that France was somewhere they stopped to refuel on the way to their ultimate destination. As it is we take in far less than France does.
Theresa May now speaking with grave concerns about the Bill, suggests the former PM may vote against the Government tonight and with the Opposition
"Theresa is just another LEFTY LAWYER standing in our way!"
She's seriously POd that her Modern Slavery bill is being (in part) superceded. Silly bag should have made a bill that was a bit more watertight than a seive.
“Silly bag”. FFS
Ok, someone needs to give me the approved list of former PMs who its OK to verbally eviscerate on PB and who we should treat with silk gloves and raised pinkies. Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, and... Triz Luss and Joris Bohnson?
It’s the ageist sexist thing. If you had called May “a fucking awful PM”, an attribute shared by the two you reference TBF, then I would not have commented.
In defence of LuckyGuy while it was not a kind expression I think we can be a bit oversensitive to these things. I don't think any of us can doubt he would use harsh descriptors for a male former PM as well.
So wanting to show some humanity is now classed by Braverman as being a naive do-gooder ! What a wretched human being.
You never answer the question of why people are trying to migrate here from a safe country, France.
Although the French could turn that around, and ask why people are trying to migrate there from a safe country, Italy.
They're not; they're trying to come to the UK.
France is the service station.
France lets far more in than the U.K. We’re not that special.
France is 4 times bigger
No it’s not. Metropolitan France covers a land area of 543,940 km2 (210,020 sq mi) while that of the U.K. is 242,495 square kilometres (93,628 sq mi)
Anyway, that’s not the point. Casino was implying that France was somewhere they stopped to refuel on the way to their ultimate destination. As it is we take in far less than France does.
After seeing several days of discussion on the subject here, I must say that I am shocked, shocked to learn that British sports celebrities are not always careful in their language, when speaking about politics.
(And I hope that Gary Lineker is backing up his words with actions, by sponsoring migrants, and by contributing at least 10 percent of his pay to some charity working to help them.)
In the week of the Budget, I think it's worth remembering the current wage rises which are lauded by the Government and its supporters are bringing more people into the tax system because of the freeze on personal allowances.
I've seen a figure of 700,000 families now paying tax because rising earnings have brought them above the tax threshold - at the same time, rising wages are drawing more and more into the upper tax bracket as personal allowances are frozen.
It's little surprise the public finances seem to be doing better as so many who previously paid lower levels of tax are now, thanks to inflation, paying more tax - one might almost call it a stealth tax rise and for those of us who remember the Osborne years, a real sense of deja vu.
It's interesting the siren calls to cut corporation tax are much louder than those to raise personal allowances above the rate of inflation.
Interesting piece in City AM this morning on the issue of returning those aged 50 and above to work. It seems incentives mean nothing in the face of cultural mindset - 71% of those aged 45 and over think there is a bias against recruiting older workers. Should we be looking at tax breaks for companies who employ a high percentage of older workers?
Should be taking any notice of City AM where the term "tax cut" is replaced by "the lifting of tax revenue rates" ?
Really you are basically lamenting people are better off enough to have to pay tax?
Lamenting fiscal drag, I think, where inflation has dragged them into a higher tax bracket, even if they have had real terms pay cuts.
After seeing several days of discussion on the subject here, I must say that I am shocked, shocked to learn that British sports celebrities are not always careful in their language, when speaking about politics.
(And I hope that Gary Lineker is backing up his words with actions, by sponsoring migrants, and by contributing at least 10 percent of his pay to some charity working to help them.)
So wanting to show some humanity is now classed by Braverman as being a naive do-gooder ! What a wretched human being.
You never answer the question of why people are trying to migrate here from a safe country, France.
Although the French could turn that around, and ask why people are trying to migrate there from a safe country, Italy.
They're not; they're trying to come to the UK.
France is the service station.
France lets far more in than the U.K. We’re not that special.
France is 4 times bigger
No it’s not. Metropolitan France covers a land area of 543,940 km2 (210,020 sq mi) while that of the U.K. is 242,495 square kilometres (93,628 sq mi)
Anyway, that’s not the point. Casino was implying that France was somewhere they stopped to refuel on the way to their ultimate destination. As it is we take in far less than France does.
France has a further 5 regions
You want me to include the British Antarctic Territory and the Falklands onto our total? Anyway, as I say, it’s besides the point.
So wanting to show some humanity is now classed by Braverman as being a naive do-gooder ! What a wretched human being.
You never answer the question of why people are trying to migrate here from a safe country, France.
Although the French could turn that around, and ask why people are trying to migrate there from a safe country, Italy.
They're not; they're trying to come to the UK.
France is the service station.
France lets far more in than the U.K. We’re not that special.
France is 4 times bigger
No it’s not. Metropolitan France covers a land area of 543,940 km2 (210,020 sq mi) while that of the U.K. is 242,495 square kilometres (93,628 sq mi)
Anyway, that’s not the point. Casino was implying that France was somewhere they stopped to refuel on the way to their ultimate destination. As it is we take in far less than France does.
France has a further 5 regions
You want me to include the British Antarctic Territory and the Falklands onto our total? Anyway, as I say, it’s besides the point.
After seeing several days of discussion on the subject here, I must say that I am shocked, shocked to learn that British sports celebrities are not always careful in their language, when speaking about politics.
(And I hope that Gary Lineker is backing up his words with actions, by sponsoring migrants, and by contributing at least 10 percent of his pay to some charity working to help them.)
He houses refugees in his house. Good enough for you?
After seeing several days of discussion on the subject here, I must say that I am shocked, shocked to learn that British sports celebrities are not always careful in their language, when speaking about politics.
(And I hope that Gary Lineker is backing up his words with actions, by sponsoring migrants, and by contributing at least 10 percent of his pay to some charity working to help them.)
He's actually taken in a couple of refugees. No one can fault his commitment.
In the week of the Budget, I think it's worth remembering the current wage rises which are lauded by the Government and its supporters are bringing more people into the tax system because of the freeze on personal allowances.
I've seen a figure of 700,000 families now paying tax because rising earnings have brought them above the tax threshold - at the same time, rising wages are drawing more and more into the upper tax bracket as personal allowances are frozen.
It's little surprise the public finances seem to be doing better as so many who previously paid lower levels of tax are now, thanks to inflation, paying more tax - one might almost call it a stealth tax rise and for those of us who remember the Osborne years, a real sense of deja vu.
It's interesting the siren calls to cut corporation tax are much louder than those to raise personal allowances above the rate of inflation.
Interesting piece in City AM this morning on the issue of returning those aged 50 and above to work. It seems incentives mean nothing in the face of cultural mindset - 71% of those aged 45 and over think there is a bias against recruiting older workers. Should we be looking at tax breaks for companies who employ a high percentage of older workers?
Should be taking any notice of City AM where the term "tax cut" is replaced by "the lifting of tax revenue rates" ?
Really you are basically lamenting people are better off enough to have to pay tax?
Actually, no - the inflation that has come from a series of events has had the effect, thanks to the freezing of personal allowances, of drawing more people into paying tax whether the basic or higher levels.
One way (and a reasonable way) of looking at it is that more people are contributing and these additional tax receipts are helping bring the deficit down and restoring the public finances. If you can't raise taxes, freeze the personal allowances and let inflation do the rest (inflation also helps with the actual deficit as well).
Another way and one which clearly touches a nerve or two is to argue a Party which claims to be in favour of cutting taxes and reducing the overall tax burden on individuals and businesses has overseen a large increase not only in the numbers paying but the amounts paid.
As to your point, the question of being "better off" is whether the increase in wages is offset by the increase in tax if you cross into the higher rate threshold or start paying tax at the basic rate.
That's the first President of an independent Scotland you are talking about, show some respect sir.
*grovel* very sorry, really sorry, please don't hurt me.
If you're very lucky you're going to be ruled by a Cambridge graduate.
You don't know how lucky you are.
I suspect not but it seems the best of a bad lot right now. I still think she would be a real problem for the Scottish Tories, much more than either of the others.
Theresa May now speaking with grave concerns about the Bill, suggests the former PM may vote against the Government tonight and with the Opposition
Her of the “go home” vans.
What a Damascene conversion.
Actually she was the first major figure to wake up to the 'modern slavery' issue, and as Home Sec really prioritised dealing with it, including of course the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
And if you can’t afford to buy or don’t have the space to install a reverse vending machine this is what @scotgov minister @lornaslater has suggested as a solution. If you agree with the DRS as it is, how would you like to work next to someone else’s rubbish?
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
After seeing several days of discussion on the subject here, I must say that I am shocked, shocked to learn that British sports celebrities are not always careful in their language, when speaking about politics.
(And I hope that Gary Lineker is backing up his words with actions, by sponsoring migrants, and by contributing at least 10 percent of his pay to some charity working to help them.)
He's actually taken in a couple of refugees. No one can fault his commitment.
For 3 weeks hell I can almost tolerate my family staying that long
So wanting to show some humanity is now classed by Braverman as being a naive do-gooder ! What a wretched human being.
You never answer the question of why people are trying to migrate here from a safe country, France.
Although the French could turn that around, and ask why people are trying to migrate there from a safe country, Italy.
They're not; they're trying to come to the UK.
France is the service station.
France lets far more in than the U.K. We’re not that special.
France is 4 times bigger
No it’s not. Metropolitan France covers a land area of 543,940 km2 (210,020 sq mi) while that of the U.K. is 242,495 square kilometres (93,628 sq mi)
Anyway, that’s not the point. Casino was implying that France was somewhere they stopped to refuel on the way to their ultimate destination. As it is we take in far less than France does.
France has a further 5 regions
You want me to include the British Antarctic Territory and the Falklands onto our total? Anyway, as I say, it’s besides the point.
Which conveniently brings us back to my plan for a penal colony in the Falklands, which I originally proposed a dozen years ago in one of my first PB posts...
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
If you want to pull out of the ECHR, as Braverman does, so that you can imprison children and treat sex slaves as criminals then I am not sure you should be asking anyone to trust their human rights to you.
It seems the irresistible farce has met the immovable objet d'art - or perhaps not.
Back to polls and we've had both a Deltpoll and a Redfield & Wilton this evening.
The headline VI numbers aren't dissimilar but that hides movement from both pollsters. The Conservatives are up three with R&W but down three from Deltapoll while Labour is down two with R&W and up three with Deltapoll.
Looking at the data and starting with Deltapoll which has Labour up 28 points with men but just 16 with women which is a shade counter-intuitive. Among those aged 65 and over, the Conservatives lead 40-34 so the latter is a 20.5% swing to Labour from 2019.
The 2016 Remain vote has a 6% swing to Labour while the Leave vote shows a 25% swing from Conservative to Labour. The 2019 Conservative vote (excluding Don't Knows) splits 62% Conservative, 27% Labour and 7% Reform.
On then to Redfield & Wilton nd whereas last week a poor VI obscured some better supplementary numbers for the Government, tonight's poll is the complete opposite. An improved VI disguises some worsening numbers on Government approval and Rishi Sunak's rating.
Including Don't Knows, the 2019 Conservative vote splits 55% Conservative, 17% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 8% Reform. With the DKs, Labour leads 42-23 with DKs on 13% and LDs on 9%. The Conservative DKs account for 38% of all DKs. Among men Labour leads by 15 and among women the lead is 23.
Taking out the Don't Knows and the Conservatives led 38-31 among the 65+ age group so a 7 point lead instead of the 47 point lead the party enjoyed in 2019 and a 20% swing to Labour.
The England sub sample returns Labour 50%, Conservative 27%, LD 11% which is an 18% swing from Labour to Conservative and a 9.5% swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat.
Wellingborough, the 250th most marginal Conservative seat, would be lost on that swing suggesting a post-election Conservative Parliamentary Party of 100-120 seats.
Wellingborough went Labour in 1997 too. However although I have some reservations about this Bill I expect it to boost Conservative votershare with Leavers and reclaim voters from RefUK in particular
expect it to boost Conservative votershare with Leavers and reclaim voters from RefUK in particular”
For how long are you predicting? The locals? The GE? Surely whatever early boost might or not happen is only sustained by the policy going on to deliver tangible benefits promised?
Without delivery, not only any boost based on promise fades over time, but tough talking and over promising just highlites eventual failure even more starkly?
Raise hopes, dash them, leads to even greater hatred of you than if you did nothing at all as being art of politics. This is exactly what wise old right of centre heads are trying to communicate to the inexperienced Primeminister and his wet behind ears front bench colleagues right this moment, isn’t it?
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
In the week of the Budget, I think it's worth remembering the current wage rises which are lauded by the Government and its supporters are bringing more people into the tax system because of the freeze on personal allowances.
I've seen a figure of 700,000 families now paying tax because rising earnings have brought them above the tax threshold - at the same time, rising wages are drawing more and more into the upper tax bracket as personal allowances are frozen.
It's little surprise the public finances seem to be doing better as so many who previously paid lower levels of tax are now, thanks to inflation, paying more tax - one might almost call it a stealth tax rise and for those of us who remember the Osborne years, a real sense of deja vu.
It's interesting the siren calls to cut corporation tax are much louder than those to raise personal allowances above the rate of inflation.
Interesting piece in City AM this morning on the issue of returning those aged 50 and above to work. It seems incentives mean nothing in the face of cultural mindset - 71% of those aged 45 and over think there is a bias against recruiting older workers. Should we be looking at tax breaks for companies who employ a high percentage of older workers?
Should be taking any notice of City AM where the term "tax cut" is replaced by "the lifting of tax revenue rates" ?
Really you are basically lamenting people are better off enough to have to pay tax?
Actually, no - the inflation that has come from a series of events has had the effect, thanks to the freezing of personal allowances, of drawing more people into paying tax whether the basic or higher levels.
One way (and a reasonable way) of looking at it is that more people are contributing and these additional tax receipts are helping bring the deficit down and restoring the public finances. If you can't raise taxes, freeze the personal allowances and let inflation do the rest (inflation also helps with the actual deficit as well).
Another way and one which clearly touches a nerve or two is to argue a Party which claims to be in favour of cutting taxes and reducing the overall tax burden on individuals and businesses has overseen a large increase not only in the numbers paying but the amounts paid.
As to your point, the question of being "better off" is whether the increase in wages is offset by the increase in tax if you cross into the higher rate threshold or start paying tax at the basic rate.
“Fiscal drag” is the term you are looking for?
Every chancellor loves it.
There was an internet clock once, that counted down, using various measures, how many years before *everyone* was a higher rate tax payer, in the UK
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
So wanting to show some humanity is now classed by Braverman as being a naive do-gooder ! What a wretched human being.
You never answer the question of why people are trying to migrate here from a safe country, France.
Although the French could turn that around, and ask why people are trying to migrate there from a safe country, Italy.
They're not; they're trying to come to the UK.
France is the service station.
France lets far more in than the U.K. We’re not that special.
France is 4 times bigger
No it’s not. Metropolitan France covers a land area of 543,940 km2 (210,020 sq mi) while that of the U.K. is 242,495 square kilometres (93,628 sq mi)
Anyway, that’s not the point. Casino was implying that France was somewhere they stopped to refuel on the way to their ultimate destination. As it is we take in far less than France does.
France has a further 5 regions
You want me to include the British Antarctic Territory and the Falklands onto our total? Anyway, as I say, it’s besides the point.
Which conveniently brings us back to my plan for a penal colony in the Falklands, which I originally proposed a dozen years ago in one of my first PB posts...
Ahem, as I mentioned earlier today when it came to the Ugandan Asians (of whom we see some in high places these days, thank goodness) there is this report of exactly that [edit] 50 years ago. Talk of sending migrants to Africa, or at least somewhere hot and near the Equator, too. Now where have I heard that lately? Can't think. Edit: and *twice* too.
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
That sounds a little like the 'Troubled Families programme' / 'Supporting families programme'
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
Theresa May now speaking with grave concerns about the Bill, suggests the former PM may vote against the Government tonight and with the Opposition
Her of the “go home” vans.
What a Damascene conversion.
And the architect of the "hostile" Home Office approach to immigration generally. cf. Windrush.
I think the hostile environment from the Home Office goes back further
All the way back to Labour:
From 2018:
The current “hostile environment” against migrants is the latest version of a strategy conceived 20 years ago by Tony Blair and Jack Straw. They set up the raid squads, expanded the detention system – and introduced the first known deportation targets.
In 2000, Labour set a target to deport 30,000 people over the next year. This was a crucially important number. It guided the size of the new PFI-funded and privately managed detention centres, and shaped the Immigration Enforcement system inherited by Theresa May today.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
I'm not sure the Conservatives could do anything to regain your support unless they reversed Brexit, installed George Osborne as PM and then enthusiastically reamed anyone to his Right.
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
There's a spectrum of possibilities, going from "Sunak believes this stuff" to "Sunak doesn't believe this stuff but is prepared to go along with colleagues saying it to win votes".
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
So long as theyt come out in the wash!
shrugs joke all you want but I am all for pragmatism....this sounds like something that cost little but had a huge impact
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
So long as theyt come out in the wash!
shrugs joke all you want but I am all for pragmatism....this sounds like something that cost little but had a huge impact
Guardian reporting that Braverman has confirmed at the despatch box that children will be exempt from detention and removal from the UK under this bill
Theresa May now speaking with grave concerns about the Bill, suggests the former PM may vote against the Government tonight and with the Opposition
"Theresa is just another LEFTY LAWYER standing in our way!"
She's seriously POd that her Modern Slavery bill is being (in part) superceded. Silly bag should have made a bill that was a bit more watertight than a seive.
“Silly bag”. FFS
Ok, someone needs to give me the approved list of former PMs who its OK to verbally eviscerate on PB and who we should treat with silk gloves and raised pinkies. Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, and... Triz Luss and Joris Bohnson?
It’s the ageist sexist thing. If you had called May “a fucking awful PM”, an attribute shared by the two you reference TBF, then I would not have commented.
I haven't noticed you confining your verdicts on politicians or indeed former PMs to the quality of their administrative skills, but I'll keep an eye out for that deeply ethical restraint in future.
Theresa May now speaking with grave concerns about the Bill, suggests the former PM may vote against the Government tonight and with the Opposition
"Theresa is just another LEFTY LAWYER standing in our way!"
She's seriously POd that her Modern Slavery bill is being (in part) superceded. Silly bag should have made a bill that was a bit more watertight than a seive.
“Silly bag”. FFS
Ok, someone needs to give me the approved list of former PMs who its OK to verbally eviscerate on PB and who we should treat with silk gloves and raised pinkies. Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, and... Triz Luss and Joris Bohnson?
It’s the ageist sexist thing. If you had called May “a fucking awful PM”, an attribute shared by the two you reference TBF, then I would not have commented.
In defence of LuckyGuy while it was not a kind expression I think we can be a bit oversensitive to these things. I don't think any of us can doubt he would use harsh descriptors for a male former PM as well.
Agreed on the sensitivity but in defence of Doug and Big G there’s nothing wrong with highlighting the use of language. If LuckyGuy finds better ways to insult those he feels need insults that’s no bad thing
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
There's a spectrum of possibilities, going from "Sunak believes this stuff" to "Sunak doesn't believe this stuff but is prepared to go along with colleagues saying it to win votes".
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
Yes, the fast tracking of asylum cases, co-operation and payments to enable coastal security in France are the things that will actually make the difference. The rest is just performative cruelty.
The problem for Sunak is that without the cruelty it does look rather like a Labour policy, and he does need some raw meat to chuck at his less salubrious supporters.
Guardian reporting that Braverman has confirmed at the despatch box that children will be exempt from detention and removal from the UK under this bill
Lineker's behavior certainly sounds better than the behavior of the leftists on Martha's Vineyard. When confronted with a large number of illegals, thanks to a stunt by the Florida governor, they let the illegals stay, as I recall, 24 hours, and then shipped them back to the mainland.
Where they were taken care of by a Republican governor at Army facilities.
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
Guardian reporting that Braverman has confirmed at the despatch box that children will be exempt from detention and removal from the UK under this bill
What does the bill actually say? Braverman's word is not worth the paper it's not written on.
Edit: Section 3 2) of the bill says: The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.
So you're definitely relying not only on her word but on the whim of every future Home Secretary.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
If you want to pull out of the ECHR, as Braverman does, so that you can imprison children and treat sex slaves as criminals then I am not sure you should be asking anyone to trust their human rights to you.
Perhaps we can all unite around the fact that a woman trafficked to the UK as a sex slave would want to be returned safely home as soon as possible.
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
I want solutions that deliver who gives a shit about the politics
Guardian reporting that Braverman has confirmed at the despatch box that children will be exempt from detention and removal from the UK under this bill
What does the bill actually say? Braverman's word is not worth the paper it's not written on.
This is from the Guardian's feed
Braverman says children will be exempt from detention and removal from UK under bill Home secretary Suella Braverman said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”.
She told MPs:
Given the mischaracterisation of the bill from members opposite, I would like to make a few things clear. The home secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, we will remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK.
Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18. With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40.
Removing them will be our primary focus. But we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal.
It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
Guardian reporting that Braverman has confirmed at the despatch box that children will be exempt from detention and removal from the UK under this bill
What does the bill actually say? Braverman's word is not worth the paper it's not written on.
This is from the Guardian's feed
Braverman says children will be exempt from detention and removal from UK under bill Home secretary Suella Braverman said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”.
She told MPs:
Given the mischaracterisation of the bill from members opposite, I would like to make a few things clear. The home secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, we will remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK.
Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18. With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40.
Removing them will be our primary focus. But we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal.
It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
Section 3 2) of the bill says: The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.
So you're definitely relying not only on her word but on the whim of every future Home Secretary.
In the week of the Budget, I think it's worth remembering the current wage rises which are lauded by the Government and its supporters are bringing more people into the tax system because of the freeze on personal allowances.
I've seen a figure of 700,000 families now paying tax because rising earnings have brought them above the tax threshold - at the same time, rising wages are drawing more and more into the upper tax bracket as personal allowances are frozen.
It's little surprise the public finances seem to be doing better as so many who previously paid lower levels of tax are now, thanks to inflation, paying more tax - one might almost call it a stealth tax rise and for those of us who remember the Osborne years, a real sense of deja vu.
It's interesting the siren calls to cut corporation tax are much louder than those to raise personal allowances above the rate of inflation.
Interesting piece in City AM this morning on the issue of returning those aged 50 and above to work. It seems incentives mean nothing in the face of cultural mindset - 71% of those aged 45 and over think there is a bias against recruiting older workers. Should we be looking at tax breaks for companies who employ a high percentage of older workers?
Should be taking any notice of City AM where the term "tax cut" is replaced by "the lifting of tax revenue rates" ?
Something many of my peers are finding. Getting work when over 50 is a real struggle. Even though you may have a decade and a half of working life still ahead of you and the average time someone in their 20s stays in the same job is 3 years, employers look at older workers and think they are going to be retiring as soon as they are trained up.
I am not sure how you deal with this - particularly as I also advocate extending national insurance to those working after retirement - but it is true it is a real issue.
Pretty much universal strike by our postgraduate doctors today in my hospital. It seems much better organised than the 2016 strike. I didn't see any patient endangered as a consequence, though Consultant cover will be expensive for the Trust financially and in terms of TOIL. A lot of planned activity was taken down such as clinics and elective surgery to free up staff to cover.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
If you want to pull out of the ECHR, as Braverman does, so that you can imprison children and treat sex slaves as criminals then I am not sure you should be asking anyone to trust their human rights to you.
Perhaps we can all unite around the fact that a woman trafficked to the UK as a sex slave would want to be returned safely home as soon as possible.
Given her trafficking started from home, possibly/probably not.
Theresa May now speaking with grave concerns about the Bill, suggests the former PM may vote against the Government tonight and with the Opposition
"Theresa is just another LEFTY LAWYER standing in our way!"
She's seriously POd that her Modern Slavery bill is being (in part) superceded. Silly bag should have made a bill that was a bit more watertight than a seive.
“Silly bag”. FFS
Ok, someone needs to give me the approved list of former PMs who its OK to verbally eviscerate on PB and who we should treat with silk gloves and raised pinkies. Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, and... Triz Luss and Joris Bohnson?
It’s the ageist sexist thing. If you had called May “a fucking awful PM”, an attribute shared by the two you reference TBF, then I would not have commented.
In defence of LuckyGuy while it was not a kind expression I think we can be a bit oversensitive to these things. I don't think any of us can doubt he would use harsh descriptors for a male former PM as well.
Agreed on the sensitivity but in defence of Doug and Big G there’s nothing wrong with highlighting the use of language. If LuckyGuy finds better ways to insult those he feels need insults that’s no bad thing
I don't consider 'silly bag' to be in any way a serious insult, nor would any musings that Dougseal or yourself had on the matter remotely affect my posting output, thanks anyway. Just to reassure you though, I also don't care enough about your opinion to use the phrase more often so as to be deliberately disagreeable.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
If you want to pull out of the ECHR, as Braverman does, so that you can imprison children and treat sex slaves as criminals then I am not sure you should be asking anyone to trust their human rights to you.
Perhaps we can all unite around the fact that a woman trafficked to the UK as a sex slave would want to be returned safely home as soon as possible.
In certain cultures she’ll be seen as compromised and shunned by that community . Notwithstanding some women and men are trying to escape from their countries and are promised the earth and then are forced into slavery . I admire your efforts to try and spin this but it’s pretty clear Braverman views victims of torture , slavery and other human misery as mere collateral damage in the scorched earth policy of this Bill. Utterly shameful and beneath contempt .
Lineker's behavior certainly sounds better than the behavior of the leftists on Martha's Vineyard. When confronted with a large number of illegals, thanks to a stunt by the Florida governor, they let the illegals stay, as I recall, 24 hours, and then shipped them back to the mainland.
Where they were taken care of by a Republican governor at Army facilities.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
If you want to pull out of the ECHR, as Braverman does, so that you can imprison children and treat sex slaves as criminals then I am not sure you should be asking anyone to trust their human rights to you.
Perhaps we can all unite around the fact that a woman trafficked to the UK as a sex slave would want to be returned safely home as soon as possible.
Given her trafficking started from home, possibly/probably not.
Indeed, it offers the opportunity of selling her as a sex slave again.
Guardian reporting that Braverman has confirmed at the despatch box that children will be exempt from detention and removal from the UK under this bill
What does the bill actually say? Braverman's word is not worth the paper it's not written on.
This is from the Guardian's feed
Braverman says children will be exempt from detention and removal from UK under bill Home secretary Suella Braverman said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”.
She told MPs:
Given the mischaracterisation of the bill from members opposite, I would like to make a few things clear. The home secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, we will remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK.
Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18. With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40.
Removing them will be our primary focus. But we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal.
It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
Section 3 2) of the bill says: The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.
So you're definitely relying not only on her word but on the whim of every future Home Secretary.
Indeed, if Braverman is serious, why doesn't she rewrite that bit of the Bill before resubmitting it to the House?
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
If you want to pull out of the ECHR, as Braverman does, so that you can imprison children and treat sex slaves as criminals then I am not sure you should be asking anyone to trust their human rights to you.
Perhaps we can all unite around the fact that a woman trafficked to the UK as a sex slave would want to be returned safely home as soon as possible.
Given her trafficking started from home, possibly/probably not.
Indeed, it offers the opportunity of selling her as a sex slave again.
Inappropriate to 'like' that comment but yes, exactly.
If you want to get a feel for how this evil system works I recommend the well-researched novel 'After Leaving The Village' by Helen Matthews.
In the week of the Budget, I think it's worth remembering the current wage rises which are lauded by the Government and its supporters are bringing more people into the tax system because of the freeze on personal allowances.
I've seen a figure of 700,000 families now paying tax because rising earnings have brought them above the tax threshold - at the same time, rising wages are drawing more and more into the upper tax bracket as personal allowances are frozen.
It's little surprise the public finances seem to be doing better as so many who previously paid lower levels of tax are now, thanks to inflation, paying more tax - one might almost call it a stealth tax rise and for those of us who remember the Osborne years, a real sense of deja vu.
It's interesting the siren calls to cut corporation tax are much louder than those to raise personal allowances above the rate of inflation.
Interesting piece in City AM this morning on the issue of returning those aged 50 and above to work. It seems incentives mean nothing in the face of cultural mindset - 71% of those aged 45 and over think there is a bias against recruiting older workers. Should we be looking at tax breaks for companies who employ a high percentage of older workers?
Should be taking any notice of City AM where the term "tax cut" is replaced by "the lifting of tax revenue rates" ?
Something many of my peers are finding. Getting work when over 50 is a real struggle. Even though you may have a decade and a half of working life still ahead of you and the average time someone in their 20s stays in the same job is 3 years, employers look at older workers and think they are going to be retiring as soon as they are trained up.
I am not sure how you deal with this - particularly as I also advocate extending national insurance to those working after retirement - but it is true it is a real issue.
I've had this discussion as part of a few interview panels. Older applicant in his 50s with a *lot* of experience "Well, he'll be looking to retire soon...". Younger applicant "Well, we can train them up even though they have almost no experience and will leave in a year or two..."
And I appreciate both arguments - younger folk need to gain experience and can be moulded, older folk bring experience and can help mould you. And if you only have one post to fill - which do you pick?
It's been a hard choice (we've come down on either side depending on the role - but _mostly_ in favour of the younger candidate in each case - for better or worse).
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
An example of something that was actually working and gave bang for buck
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
It’s not so much politics - it’s the politics of point scoring / fuelling anger adopted by the mail, express and telegraph.
Theresa May now speaking with grave concerns about the Bill, suggests the former PM may vote against the Government tonight and with the Opposition
Her of the “go home” vans.
What a Damascene conversion.
And the architect of the "hostile" Home Office approach to immigration generally. cf. Windrush.
I think the hostile environment from the Home Office goes back further
All the way back to Labour:
From 2018:
The current “hostile environment” against migrants is the latest version of a strategy conceived 20 years ago by Tony Blair and Jack Straw. They set up the raid squads, expanded the detention system – and introduced the first known deportation targets.
In 2000, Labour set a target to deport 30,000 people over the next year. This was a crucially important number. It guided the size of the new PFI-funded and privately managed detention centres, and shaped the Immigration Enforcement system inherited by Theresa May today.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
I'm not sure the Conservatives could do anything to regain your support unless they reversed Brexit, installed George Osborne as PM and then enthusiastically reamed anyone to his Right.
Guardian reporting that Braverman has confirmed at the despatch box that children will be exempt from detention and removal from the UK under this bill
What does the bill actually say? Braverman's word is not worth the paper it's not written on.
This is from the Guardian's feed
Braverman says children will be exempt from detention and removal from UK under bill Home secretary Suella Braverman said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”.
She told MPs:
Given the mischaracterisation of the bill from members opposite, I would like to make a few things clear. The home secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, we will remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK.
Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18. With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40.
Removing them will be our primary focus. But we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal.
It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
Section 3 2) of the bill says: The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.
So you're definitely relying not only on her word but on the whim of every future Home Secretary.
Indeed, if Braverman is serious, why doesn't she rewrite that bit of the Bill before resubmitting it to the House?
Rather like the possible reason for threatening the RNLI a year or two back, it may be intentional to distract opponents from other parts of the Bill.
Braverman now trying to suggest civil unrest if the boats aren’t stopped . Or hoping for it ! She’s now employing straw man arguments to address perfectly valid concerns .
What a horrible woman .
Enoch Powell would be proud. And confused.
It’s funny you said Powell, my dad said in FaceTime chat Edward Heath would throw Suella Braverman completely out the Tory Party, so this is example of how the party ge joined has changed.
My mum likes her. Just about the only cabinet minister she does like and trust.
Braverman is tough. (Or is perceived that way, which in politics is same thing.) Also straight talker. (Ditto.)
And a thing that plenty of voters want in a politico. One way or the other.
So can see where your Mum's comin' from, so to speak. Without being compelled to agree!
ADDENDUM - Also thing that having a politico of color, and a woman one to boot, is smart politics, especially for Tories. Again, without endorsing SB in the role.
My mum reckons the country is too full, and as Tory’s have stopped all immigration completely with Brexit apart from the cheating boat people, no policy on this loophole can be too tough, our way of life and economy and NHS and everything absolutely threatened by this absolute invasion horde of these cheaters, and aghast there’s anyone at all actually on their side at all like Lineker, and me supporting him. And she wasn’t actually born in this country. She never lived here till marrying my dad and shortly after giving birth to my brother and me. 🤦♀️
Personally am way more in tune with you & your Dad on this; thanks for sharing his view re: Heath & Powell.
Is perhaps one element in your Mum's view, that she is (I presume) a legal immigrant who had to go through more than one hoop to become a UK resident and (again presuming) citizen?
That's pretty common over here, esp. among children & grandchildren of (presumably) legal immigrants.
She’s strictly legal naturalised UK citizen, mostly from absorbing Daily Mail cover to cover everyday since she got here!
But as HY keeps pointing out and we should listen, why on earth would anyone vote Farage or Enoch Powell when they can vote and support Brexiteer Primeministers like Rishi Sunak and vote and support Braverman’s brave tough policies protecting our NHS and our British communities from the threat and menace of cheating small boat invaders?
In brighter news, Daffodils bright yellow beacons of hope will soon be with us 🤗
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
There's a spectrum of possibilities, going from "Sunak believes this stuff" to "Sunak doesn't believe this stuff but is prepared to go along with colleagues saying it to win votes".
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
Yes, the fast tracking of asylum cases, co-operation and payments to enable coastal security in France are the things that will actually make the difference. The rest is just performative cruelty.
The problem for Sunak is that without the cruelty it does look rather like a Labour policy, and he does need some raw meat to chuck at his less salubrious supporters.
Even if the bill were 'performative cruelty', that 'performance' itself could comprise an extremely important part of its impact. Stopping the crossings means stopping tens of thousands of individual decisions. If a realistic prospect of being allowed to stay is extinguished, people will stop paying the traffickers to make the journey. Even the abortive Rwanda project did have an affect on crossings - its affect was to radically decrease the price that people were willing to pay for the crossings. That was without any actual people being taken there. A far more robust system has the prospect of eliminating the crossings like a thunderclap, and with it eliminating a vast well of human misery.
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
I have purposefully kept off the topic of SureStart because I admit it is quite a way outside of my knowledge.
When I made my original comments I was probably thinking more towards the government facilitating more independently conceived community projects and initiatives, as opposed to top-down schemes like SureStart (though I can see the benefit in those too). That just comes from personal philosophy, I think.
I would like to see more facilities being returned to local communities. I think a lot of what divides us as a society is emphasised when we exist in bubbles.
If I go to my hypothetical adult illiterally reduced by 50%. What I would actually do if I was in charge is pick the 30 councils with highest adult illiteracy. Say here you are 5 million ring fenced, half adult illiteracy in your area. This is how we are going to measure it. Then go back 2 years later assess them all against target and then roll out the best programs nationwide
In a former life I evaluated the impact of something called ‘budget holding lead professionals’ which was horrible jargon for a great idea. In short the professionals working closest to eg a kid at risk were given cash to spend on interventions that would help that kid (in consultation with the family).
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
That sounds a little like the 'Troubled Families programme' / 'Supporting families programme'
Perhaps? I must admit, once I started teaching I lost touch with so much of this stuff - it’s possible something similar was implemented at a later date. The key to it was how empowered the professionals working with the families were to make spending decisions rather than picking from a menu of interventions that didn’t quite fit the need.
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
You are a very strange and troubled man. I say that as someone who is also, albeit in a radically different way
Lineker's behavior certainly sounds better than the behavior of the leftists on Martha's Vineyard. When confronted with a large number of illegals, thanks to a stunt by the Florida governor, they let the illegals stay, as I recall, 24 hours, and then shipped them back to the mainland.
Where they were taken care of by a Republican governor at Army facilities.
These people know you can't really justify prosecuting schools that talk to teenagers about being gay, so they settle on some perceived flaw of some of the other side, then use it to justify doing absolutely anything.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
There's a spectrum of possibilities, going from "Sunak believes this stuff" to "Sunak doesn't believe this stuff but is prepared to go along with colleagues saying it to win votes".
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
Yes, the fast tracking of asylum cases, co-operation and payments to enable coastal security in France are the things that will actually make the difference. The rest is just performative cruelty.
The problem for Sunak is that without the cruelty it does look rather like a Labour policy, and he does need some raw meat to chuck at his less salubrious supporters.
Firstly, I only realised today term Junior Doctor is not wet behind ears student but all doctors up to consultant. So you on strike Foxy?
Secondly, Sunak is weak man in weak position. He only got the gig to prevent Boris 2.0. He only keeps it if polls don’t move and locals terrible to prevent Boris 2.0.
Let’s be honest the real reason Liz and Leaky Sue had shouting match was leaky Sue conspiring with her backbench sponsors for this policy, actively a Home Sec colluding with back benchers to undermine and destroy a Priministers and governments policy as Liz had rejected this path. Sunak has no choice but to tolerate Cruella and her policy and an arch remainer as Chancellor because he is in too weak a position to confront or remove either.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
There's a spectrum of possibilities, going from "Sunak believes this stuff" to "Sunak doesn't believe this stuff but is prepared to go along with colleagues saying it to win votes".
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
Yes, the fast tracking of asylum cases, co-operation and payments to enable coastal security in France are the things that will actually make the difference. The rest is just performative cruelty.
The problem for Sunak is that without the cruelty it does look rather like a Labour policy, and he does need some raw meat to chuck at his less salubrious supporters.
Firstly, I only realised today term Junior Doctor is not wet behind ears student but all doctors up to consultant. So you on strike Foxy?
Secondly, Sunak is weak man in weak position. He only got the gig to prevent Boris 2.0. He only keeps it if polls don’t move and locals terrible to prevent Boris 2.0.
Let’s be honest the real reason Liz and Leaky Sue had shouting match was leaky Sue conspiring with her backbench sponsors for this policy, actively a Home Sec colluding with back benchers to undermine and destroy a Priministers and governments policy as Liz had rejected this path. Sunak has no choice but to tolerate Cruella and her policy and an arch remainer as Chancellor because he is in too weak a position to confront or remove either.
Same as “Junior” Barristers are those who are not KC’s.
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
You are a very strange and troubled man. I say that as someone who is also, albeit in a radically different way
"Very strange and troubled man" = most PB posters, tbh. That's pretty much what my girlfriend makes of me.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
There's a spectrum of possibilities, going from "Sunak believes this stuff" to "Sunak doesn't believe this stuff but is prepared to go along with colleagues saying it to win votes".
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
Yes, the fast tracking of asylum cases, co-operation and payments to enable coastal security in France are the things that will actually make the difference. The rest is just performative cruelty.
The problem for Sunak is that without the cruelty it does look rather like a Labour policy, and he does need some raw meat to chuck at his less salubrious supporters.
Firstly, I only realised today term Junior Doctor is not wet behind ears student but all doctors up to consultant. So you on strike Foxy?
No, those days are long behind me. I am at the other end of my career.
Consultants will be balloting for strike in April, if there is no serious progress on our negotiations.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
If you want to pull out of the ECHR, as Braverman does, so that you can imprison children and treat sex slaves as criminals then I am not sure you should be asking anyone to trust their human rights to you.
Perhaps we can all unite around the fact that a woman trafficked to the UK as a sex slave would want to be returned safely home as soon as possible.
In certain cultures she’ll be seen as compromised and shunned by that community . Notwithstanding some women and men are trying to escape from their countries and are promised the earth and then are forced into slavery . I admire your efforts to try and spin this but it’s pretty clear Braverman views victims of torture , slavery and other human misery as mere collateral damage in the scorched earth policy of this Bill. Utterly shameful and beneath contempt .
Don't - I'm not trying to spin anything, I wouldn't dream of doing so for this Government. That said, I find what Braverman is doing to be truly 'brave' - any backslapping she might get from Conservative association meetings or on GBNews is dwarved by the unrestrained vituperation and character assassination she gets from everyone else. If she succeeds in ending the cross-channel industry, she will deserve a medal.
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
You are a very strange and troubled man. I say that as someone who is also, albeit in a radically different way
"Very strange and troubled man" = most PB posters, tbh. That's pretty much what my girlfriend makes of me.
I have to confess I am pretty much a normal, well-balanced person. Sorry to let the side down and all that.
I am not sure that imprisoning children and treating women trafficked to the UK as sex slaves as criminals is going to enjoy huge popular support.
It's pound shop Trumpism.
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
There's a spectrum of possibilities, going from "Sunak believes this stuff" to "Sunak doesn't believe this stuff but is prepared to go along with colleagues saying it to win votes".
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
Yes, the fast tracking of asylum cases, co-operation and payments to enable coastal security in France are the things that will actually make the difference. The rest is just performative cruelty.
The problem for Sunak is that without the cruelty it does look rather like a Labour policy, and he does need some raw meat to chuck at his less salubrious supporters.
Even if the bill were 'performative cruelty', that 'performance' itself could comprise an extremely important part of its impact. Stopping the crossings means stopping tens of thousands of individual decisions. If a realistic prospect of being allowed to stay is extinguished, people will stop paying the traffickers to make the journey. Even the abortive Rwanda project did have an affect on crossings - its affect was to radically decrease the price that people were willing to pay for the crossings. That was without any actual people being taken there. A far more robust system has the prospect of eliminating the crossings like a thunderclap, and with it eliminating a vast well of human misery.
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
You are a very strange and troubled man. I say that as someone who is also, albeit in a radically different way
"Very strange and troubled man" = most PB posters, tbh. That's pretty much what my girlfriend makes of me.
I have to confess I am pretty much a normal, well-balanced person. Sorry to let the side down and all that.
I am definitely odd, but very chilled and equable. Sorry to be so centrist.
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
You are a very strange and troubled man. I say that as someone who is also, albeit in a radically different way
"Very strange and troubled man" = most PB posters, tbh. That's pretty much what my girlfriend makes of me.
I have to confess I am pretty much a normal, well-balanced person. Sorry to let the side down and all that.
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
You are a very strange and troubled man. I say that as someone who is also, albeit in a radically different way
"Very strange and troubled man" = most PB posters, tbh. That's pretty much what my girlfriend makes of me.
I have to confess I am pretty much a normal, well-balanced person. Sorry to let the side down and all that.
What are you doing here?!?!?!!! Who let you in?????
No PB header IN CAPITAL LETTERS slagging off the latest Scottish poll?
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
You are a very strange and troubled man. I say that as someone who is also, albeit in a radically different way
"Very strange and troubled man" = most PB posters, tbh. That's pretty much what my girlfriend makes of me.
I have to confess I am pretty much a normal, well-balanced person. Sorry to let the side down and all that.
I am definitely odd, but very chilled and equable. Sorry to be so centrist.
Comments
Politico.com - How Democrats disarmed a brewing Senate battle in Michigan
Debbie Stabenow is headed toward retirement with a concerted plan that’s falling very much into place, with Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) all but clearing the field so far.
What looked at first like a Democratic free-for all for Michigan’s open Senate seat is nearly over already. Which is exactly what Debbie Stabenow and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wanted.
The retiring Stabenow has personally steered several of those interested in taking her Mitten State seat toward different positions that will soon open up. And as a result, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) has largely cleared the field in what could have otherwise been a messy Senate primary.
So while the primary itself is more than a year away, there’s a growing feeling that party leaders have avoided a pile-up in a race that Democrats absolutely need to win to keep their majority next fall.
“If we have lots of talented people and they’re all running for different positions, then we get the benefit,” Stabenow, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, said in an interview. “So that’s what I’ve been saying: ‘Think about how to best keep this great talent going in the state.’ And you don’t do it by everybody running for the same seat.”
Behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Stabenow and Schumer, a former Senate campaign arm chief himself, helped quell fears of a messy fight over succeeding Stabenow in a must-win battleground state. But it’s less likely that Democrats can or even want to similarly smooth internal headaches over other open Senate seats — simply put, the party is fine with a chaotic primary in deep-blue California but resolved early on not to let the GOP capitalize on a disorganized clamor in Michigan. . . .
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans are weighing their own similar adaptation after enduring several tough primaries in 2022 that left their nominees with little money and factionalized party bases. . . .
But it remains to be seen whether the GOP will have the same success as Democrats had in Michigan.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/13/democrats-senate-michigan-stabenow-slotkin-00086655
Anyway, that’s not the point. Casino was implying that France was somewhere they stopped to refuel on the way to their ultimate destination. As it is we take in far less than France does.
We're being ludicrously simplistic here - the bill is against modern slavery, therefore any alteration of it must be bad.
(And I hope that Gary Lineker is backing up his words with actions, by sponsoring migrants, and by contributing at least 10 percent of his pay to some charity working to help them.)
You don't know how lucky you are.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inside-gary-linekers-home-welcomed-29434599.amp
So long as Sunak keeps Braverman in government then he's a [moderated] of the highest order who deserves to be gubbed at the next election.
That's a good start.
One way (and a reasonable way) of looking at it is that more people are contributing and these additional tax receipts are helping bring the deficit down and restoring the public finances. If you can't raise taxes, freeze the personal allowances and let inflation do the rest (inflation also helps with the actual deficit as well).
Another way and one which clearly touches a nerve or two is to argue a Party which claims to be in favour of cutting taxes and reducing the overall tax burden on individuals and businesses has overseen a large increase not only in the numbers paying but the amounts paid.
As to your point, the question of being "better off" is whether the increase in wages is offset by the increase in tax if you cross into the higher rate threshold or start paying tax at the basic rate.
The case study that sticks in my mind was a social worker that bought a family a second hand washing machine for £80 or so. The kids clothes were clean, he stopped being bullied at school and avoided likely permanent exclusion with all the attendant costs that come with that. For £80.
That was a memorable but not unusual example of the impact of the programme. The vfm was amazing.
But the programme got canned. I remember sitting with the chief executive of Coventry Council when he explained why: ‘if we go forward with this programme, the headlines in the Daily Mail would be “Council buys scroungers washing machines”. We won’t be able to make it work politically.’
So sad.
That is never to be counted on. Remember the fright we all had with the RNLI. Might not work so well this time round.
For how long are you predicting? The locals? The GE? Surely whatever early boost might or not happen is only sustained by the policy going on to deliver tangible benefits promised?
Without delivery, not only any boost based on promise fades over time, but tough talking and over promising just highlites eventual failure even more starkly?
Raise hopes, dash them, leads to even greater hatred of you than if you did nothing at all as being art of politics. This is exactly what wise old right of centre heads are trying to communicate to the inexperienced Primeminister and his wet behind ears front bench colleagues right this moment, isn’t it?
Politics is the poison in the national discourse
Every chancellor loves it.
There was an internet clock once, that counted down, using various measures, how many years before *everyone* was a higher rate tax payer, in the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jan/01/past.politics
It comes to something that the second of those is the opitimistic case. (Roughly the magician thing again- talk loudly about stupid cruel stuff whilst the hands quietly do the stuff that might actually help, even if it means giving the French lots of wonga.)
The problem for Sunak is that without the cruelty it does look rather like a Labour policy, and he does need some raw meat to chuck at his less salubrious supporters.
Where they were taken care of by a Republican governor at Army facilities.
(That behavior of MV residents would not surprise anyone who has read Tom Wolfe's brilliant "Mauve Gloves and Madmen . . . ". Which everyone who wants to understand politics in the US should read. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781429961226/mauveglovesandmadmenclutterandvine
Edit: Section 3 2) of the bill says:
The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.
So you're definitely relying not only on her word but on the whim of every future Home Secretary.
Then I had venison for the first time in five years.
I need to eat it more often.
Braverman says children will be exempt from detention and removal from UK under bill
Home secretary Suella Braverman said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”.
She told MPs:
Given the mischaracterisation of the bill from members opposite, I would like to make a few things clear. The home secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, we will remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK.
Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18. With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40.
Removing them will be our primary focus. But we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal.
It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.
So you're definitely relying not only on her word but on the whim of every future Home Secretary.
I am not sure how you deal with this - particularly as I also advocate extending national insurance to those working after retirement - but it is true it is a real issue.
If you want to get a feel for how this evil system works I recommend the well-researched novel 'After Leaving The Village' by Helen Matthews.
And I appreciate both arguments - younger folk need to gain experience and can be moulded, older folk bring experience and can help mould you. And if you only have one post to fill - which do you pick?
It's been a hard choice (we've come down on either side depending on the role - but _mostly_ in favour of the younger candidate in each case - for better or worse).
Farage is her man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1_YEYOWYk8
https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/videos/enoch-powell-predicts-brexit/1488899597874943/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_LGXCXCTI4
But as HY keeps pointing out and we should listen, why on earth would anyone vote Farage or Enoch Powell when they can vote and support Brexiteer Primeministers like Rishi Sunak and vote and support Braverman’s brave tough policies protecting our NHS and our British communities from the threat and menace of cheating small boat invaders?
In brighter news, Daffodils bright yellow beacons of hope will soon be with us 🤗
https://the-yorkshireman.com/farndale-daffodil-valley/
Elvis was OK though.
Whyever not?? According to PB the SNP and SLab were neck and neck a couple of days ago. We deserve to be told why the SNP now suddenly has a 10 point lead.
Either the SNP has had a fantastic week… or PB publishes a load of blatant shite. You decide.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23382846.sky-news-poll-puts-union-support-eight-points-ahead-snp-debate/
"Mr Yousaf is, within MoE, as shite as Mr Sunak" isn't exactly a winning argument, even when he did quote bits.
We’ve seen from the outset Bravermans character.
Secondly, Sunak is weak man in weak position. He only got the gig to prevent Boris 2.0. He only keeps it if polls don’t move and locals terrible to prevent Boris 2.0.
Let’s be honest the real reason Liz and Leaky Sue had shouting match was leaky Sue conspiring with her backbench sponsors for this policy, actively a Home Sec colluding with back benchers to undermine and destroy a Priministers and governments policy as Liz had rejected this path. Sunak has no choice but to tolerate Cruella and her policy and an arch remainer as Chancellor because he is in too weak a position to confront or remove either.
Consultants will be balloting for strike in April, if there is no serious progress on our negotiations.
https://twitter.com/BMA_Consultants/status/1632704318334726145?t=BvmHuKazdxb_ZtVSed2Dfg&s=19
I didn't vote for strike in the consultative ballot, opting for overtime ban, work to contract and non-co-operation with management.