Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Yes, though never Labour.
The thing is, Roger, if you're (with apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) a middle class internationalist with fashionable Guardianist opinions, you almost always have a choice. If you're tastes are more small state and/or you think the Guardian a bit daft, you have a choice of a Conservative Party or some seldom savoury rag tag and bobtails. So the Conservatives do rather hoover up the votes of people who are not necessarily enthusiastic about them but aren't utterly hostile to them.
That's true but we all have a bottom line. I sometimes think I might be financially a little better off with a Tory government but there are a few lines I can't cross. Treatment and language used towards refugees is topical and one of them. I can't envisage ever voting for a party that could find Patel or Braverman acceptable. Anything that seems cruel and vindictive from a politician would rule them out. I'd prefer incompetence any day of the week. Corbyn was patently hopeless but I could never imagine him sending vans to immigrant areas saying "Go Home"
I could imagine him sending such vans to Jewish areas.
Note that Trump now odds on to be republican nominee. Quite a turnaround from a few weeks ago. With his opponent likely an elderly Biden it could be President Trump the resurrection.
Biden leads Trump 49% to 45% with Quinnipiac this week.
Nadine Dorries spent her time as Culture Secretary thinking she was being really tough on the BBC - talking about scrapping the Licence Fee etc.
In fact, the BBC ran rings round her and she agreed a Licence Fee settlement of a two year freeze and then CPI increases for four years after that (in contrast George Osborne froze it for six years).
This was in spite of the fact that the previous settlement in 2017 was done on the basis the BBC would fund all over 75s licences which they aren't actually now doing - which has already given the BBC a large unexpected revenue boost of hundreds of millions of pounds.
Now, the rise in April 2024 will be based on CPI but historically this has always been calculated as the average of the CPI for 18 months to 6 months before the increase date - ie October 2022 to September 2023. So the current over 10% CPI will be in the calculation.
In the Budget documents, the OBR has said it expects the Licence Fee to rise by 8.2% in April 2024 - from £159 to £172 - the biggest rise in 20 years.
Guess what - Nadine Dorries now wants it frozen. Yet she was the Minister who agreed this deal. And she thought she was being tough!
Anyway, at least the Telegraph have caught up with what is going on and have put it on their front page.
The question now is can the Govt say they are changing the CPI figure used - preferably to use the most up to date CPI figure - say the December 2023 figure now forecast to be 3.9%.
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Big question Roger, have you ever voted Tory? I would like to think that I too would not be in the never labour camp, but Jesus they made it difficult for me when it really mattered during the Blair years. As for Gordon Brown, thanks for nothing... The man who delivered devolution thinking that it would create a Scottish Labour fiefdom with a voting system that would never deliver a majority whatever the government at Westminster despite Scottish Labour being dominant, and then Scottish Labour lost it to the SNP, and for the last 15 years... From where I am standing, the Scottish Conservatives have spent more time shoring up the Union than Scottish Labour has done since 1999
Note that Trump now odds on to be republican nominee. Quite a turnaround from a few weeks ago. With his opponent likely an elderly Biden it could be President Trump the resurrection.
Biden leads Trump 49% to 45% with Quinnipiac this week.
I'd like to think that Trump is yesterday's man and his time has passed. The USA stared into the abyss by the end and has now learned its lesson.
But, I think American politics is sufficiently mad (to an extent I'm not sure any of us truly understand) that I don't think it can be ruled out.
Isn't this slightly missing the point in the sense that Trump in 2016 was a bit like a pain signal that a lot of things in the US were not right? And if the response to him winning the first time was to refuse to address most of those problems the same thing could happen again for the same reason.
I had to check it wasn’t a parody account. What planet are these people on? Do they have even the most basic understanding of the concept of “democracy” ??!!!
Note that Trump now odds on to be republican nominee. Quite a turnaround from a few weeks ago. With his opponent likely an elderly Biden it could be President Trump the resurrection.
Biden leads Trump 49% to 45% with Quinnipiac this week.
I'd like to think that Trump is yesterday's man and his time has passed. The USA stared into the abyss by the end and has now learned its lesson.
But, I think American politics is sufficiently mad (to an extent I'm not sure any of us truly understand) that I don't think it can be ruled out.
Exhibit A. Compelling evidence that the broadcaster holds them in utter contempt and lies to them constantly is enough affect the trust of ... barely a fifth of Fox News viewers. And has hardly effected the viewing figures at all.
The Borders and Aberdeenshire are posher than most of the North of England and ex industrial West Midlands, as is Monmouthshire for instance. So not that surprising
Except that Monmouthshire is Red in this forecast. The two Welsh tory seats here are Brecon and Montgomeryshire. Both have had large LD votes in the past but which has drifted away - mostly to Labour, but has not yet consolidated into single non-tory vote. I expect that in a GE tommorrow that Labour would take Brecon but Monty could stay blue.
But on new boundaries Conservatives would certainly lose both to Labour.
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that thee are effective efforts to improve things.
Met police on ‘last chance’ as Casey report to condemn failure to change Exclusive: findings of official review due out on Tuesday described as ‘horrible’ and ‘atrocious’ for force https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/16/met-police-on-last-chance-as-casey-report-to-condemn-failure-to-change ...The Met faces another damning report on failings that left the serial killer Stephen Port free, and this month the police watchdog will announce whether a Met firearms officer should be referred to prosecutors over the shooting of Chris Kaba last September.
On Thursday night Kaba’s relatives said they were “concerned” by the resignations of two senior officials from the watchdog investigating the shooting.
“We have concerns that two of the senior people at the IOPC who have been overseeing the homicide investigation in this case – Michael Lockwood and Sal Naseem – have resigned during the investigation,” the family said in a statement.
“We find this unsettling and are concerned that it does not affect the nature of the IOPC decisions or their timing – we have already waited too long to know if the IOPC is seeking advice on criminal charges from the CPS.”
Lockwood, the IOPC director general, stepped down in December as he was the subject of a police probe into an historical allegation.
The departure of Naseem, the regional director for London and national lead for race discrimination, was announced this month, the organisation said....
Chris Kaba family concerned about watchdog resignations https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64982978.amp ...Mr Lockwood resigned in December 2022 after becoming the subject of a police investigation, Home Secretary Suella Braverman previously revealed. The reason for Mr Naseem's resignation has not been disclosed...
The December report: Police watchdog head Michael Lockwood resigns amid investigation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-63848998 The head of the police watchdog has been forced to resign after becoming the subject of a police investigation, Home Secretary Suella Braverman says. Independent Office for Police Conduct director general Michael Lockwood said on Friday that he was resigning for "personal and domestic reasons". But on Saturday the home secretary said she had taken action after learning of the probe into a historical allegation... ...Mr Lockwood was the first person appointed to lead the IOPC when it replaced the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2018. It handles the most serious complaints against police in England and Wales.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Yes, though never Labour.
The thing is, Roger, if you're (with apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) a middle class internationalist with fashionable Guardianist opinions, you almost always have a choice. If you're tastes are more small state and/or you think the Guardian a bit daft, you have a choice of a Conservative Party or some seldom savoury rag tag and bobtails. So the Conservatives do rather hoover up the votes of people who are not necessarily enthusiastic about them but aren't utterly hostile to them.
That's true but we all have a bottom line. I sometimes think I might be financially a little better off with a Tory government but there are a few lines I can't cross. Treatment and language used towards refugees is topical and one of them. I can't envisage ever voting for a party that could find Patel or Braverman acceptable. Anything that seems cruel and vindictive from a politician would rule them out. I'd prefer incompetence any day of the week. Corbyn was patently hopeless but I could never imagine him sending vans to immigrant areas saying "Go Home"
I could imagine him sending such vans to Jewish areas.
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Yes, though never Labour.
The thing is, Roger, if you're (with apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) a middle class internationalist with fashionable Guardianist opinions, you almost always have a choice. If you're tastes are more small state and/or you think the Guardian a bit daft, you have a choice of a Conservative Party or some seldom savoury rag tag and bobtails. So the Conservatives do rather hoover up the votes of people who are not necessarily enthusiastic about them but aren't utterly hostile to them.
That's true but we all have a bottom line. I sometimes think I might be financially a little better off with a Tory government but there are a few lines I can't cross. Treatment and language used towards refugees is topical and one of them. I can't envisage ever voting for a party that could find Patel or Braverman acceptable. Anything that seems cruel and vindictive from a politician would rule them out. I'd prefer incompetence any day of the week. Corbyn was patently hopeless but I could never imagine him sending vans to immigrant areas saying "Go Home"
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Yes, though never Labour.
The thing is, Roger, if you're (with apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) a middle class internationalist with fashionable Guardianist opinions, you almost always have a choice. If you're tastes are more small state and/or you think the Guardian a bit daft, you have a choice of a Conservative Party or some seldom savoury rag tag and bobtails. So the Conservatives do rather hoover up the votes of people who are not necessarily enthusiastic about them but aren't utterly hostile to them.
That's true but we all have a bottom line. I sometimes think I might be financially a little better off with a Tory government but there are a few lines I can't cross. Treatment and language used towards refugees is topical and one of them. I can't envisage ever voting for a party that could find Patel or Braverman acceptable. Anything that seems cruel and vindictive from a politician would rule them out. I'd prefer incompetence any day of the week. Corbyn was patently hopeless but I could never imagine him sending vans to immigrant areas saying "Go Home"
I could imagine him sending such vans to Jewish areas.
No you couldn't.
I’m sure he can.
@Casino_Royale ’s political psychology requires him to draw such a ridiculous equivalence.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
It already is.
Truthfully it was at the time of the Goddard case in 1928.
But too many vested interests mean it won’t happen.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Yes, though never Labour.
The thing is, Roger, if you're (with apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) a middle class internationalist with fashionable Guardianist opinions, you almost always have a choice. If you're tastes are more small state and/or you think the Guardian a bit daft, you have a choice of a Conservative Party or some seldom savoury rag tag and bobtails. So the Conservatives do rather hoover up the votes of people who are not necessarily enthusiastic about them but aren't utterly hostile to them.
That's true but we all have a bottom line. I sometimes think I might be financially a little better off with a Tory government but there are a few lines I can't cross. Treatment and language used towards refugees is topical and one of them. I can't envisage ever voting for a party that could find Patel or Braverman acceptable. Anything that seems cruel and vindictive from a politician would rule them out. I'd prefer incompetence any day of the week. Corbyn was patently hopeless but I could never imagine him sending vans to immigrant areas saying "Go Home"
I could imagine him sending such vans to Jewish areas.
No you couldn't.
I’m sure he can.
@Casino_Royale ’s political psychology requires him to draw such a ridiculous equivalence.
Our politics is in a dark place.
But it's cool Britannia when lefty Linekar does it.? PB politics is in a dark place....
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Big question Roger, have you ever voted Tory? I would like to think that I too would not be in the never labour camp, but Jesus they made it difficult for me when it really mattered during the Blair years. As for Gordon Brown, thanks for nothing... The man who delivered devolution thinking that it would create a Scottish Labour fiefdom with a voting system that would never deliver a majority whatever the government at Westminster despite Scottish Labour being dominant, and then Scottish Labour lost it to the SNP, and for the last 15 years... From where I am standing, the Scottish Conservatives have spent more time shoring up the Union than Scottish Labour has done since 1999
The biggest problem with devolution wasn't the fact that it happened in the first place, but the incompetence of the execution - and Labour and the Tories must now be regarded as equally culpable, given that one established the system and the other has made no attempt to correct its deficiencies over the last thirteen years.
In the Scottish Parliament, you have a body with an immense aggregation of both administrative and legislative authority, but with revenue raising powers not that much greater than those of a county council. It controls the bulk of Scotland's domestic spending, but is almost entirely dependent on handouts from Westminster to fund it. This leaves the Scottish Government to take credit for most of the nice stuff, like building shiny new hospitals, and ferries (OK, maybe we'll gloss over those,) and handouts like free prescriptions that its neighbours don't get, whilst blaming its problems on the negligence and tight-fistedness, real or perceived, of the UK Government, the main role of which in Scotland is now the unpopular business of tax collection. It's a custom-built grievance machine.
All of this, and the West Lothian Question left unresolved, and the ridiculous Barnett Formula effectively left pickled in aspic for the rest of time because of the inexplicable refusal of anyone even to contemplate replacing it with a logical system of calculation for transfer payments. The entire set-up is a textbook example of constitutional vandalism, presided over to date by seven different UK Prime Ministers, none of whom has shown the least inclination to address the litany of problems with the Union as it burns down around them.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
No it really doesn't.
Disagree. Generous state pensions ought, in theory, to be perfectly affordable. The reason they aren't is that the wealthier codgers won't accept the quid pro quo, which is that everyone's asset wealth - including, crucially, theirs - needs to be taxed substantially more heavily to finance them.
We can't afford to give less well off folk a decent basic standard of living, and we can't repair our crumbling infrastructure and public services either, because everybody wants nice things but everybody also expects anyone else but themselves to cover the cost. 'twas ever thus.
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Yes, though never Labour.
The thing is, Roger, if you're (with apologies if I'm misrepresenting you) a middle class internationalist with fashionable Guardianist opinions, you almost always have a choice. If you're tastes are more small state and/or you think the Guardian a bit daft, you have a choice of a Conservative Party or some seldom savoury rag tag and bobtails. So the Conservatives do rather hoover up the votes of people who are not necessarily enthusiastic about them but aren't utterly hostile to them.
That's true but we all have a bottom line. I sometimes think I might be financially a little better off with a Tory government but there are a few lines I can't cross. Treatment and language used towards refugees is topical and one of them. I can't envisage ever voting for a party that could find Patel or Braverman acceptable. Anything that seems cruel and vindictive from a politician would rule them out. I'd prefer incompetence any day of the week. Corbyn was patently hopeless but I could never imagine him sending vans to immigrant areas saying "Go Home"
I could imagine him sending such vans to Jewish areas.
No you couldn't.
It should be a truth universally acknowledged that those who cried their eyes out over Linekeresque hyperbole over 1930s comparisons are exactly the same types who do the Corbyn Einsatsgruppen patter.
Electoral calculus makes it 479-94 with no tactical effects.
And OK, that's not going to happen (is it?).
But the nearest comparable polls in '92-'97 were the ICM/Guardian series. Gold standard, Spiral of Silence, all that jazz.
Their polls in 1995 were all in the range Conservative 29 +/- 3 Labour 50 +/- 3 Lib Dem 20 +/- 3
We all know history doesn't repeat and Starmer isn't Blair. And there's still only a bit less than 2 years to go.
But Conservatives need something to change the narrative. What?
Many more Conservatives will rally round as the election approaches to close the gap.
Yes, with Boris out and Truss booted there's a lot of people who will just amble back to the party over the next 12-18 months.
Yep. If the Tories can consolidate their voter base - largely minted elderly homeowners and their heirs, but also the cohort of "Never Labour" social conservatives - then they're right back in the game.
These mid-term polls are all meaningless. Masses of right-leaning voters + boundary change + SNP strength in Scotland + uninspiring Opposition = Hung Parliament. Sunak's Tories could very easily salvage over 250 seats.
And if everyone could have a seven year amnesia they could be in with a chance
The thing is, though, while from my perspective the last seven years of government have been nothing to celebrate, it feels like everything the government have got right Labour have vociferously opposed, and everything they have got wrong Labour have supported.
I'd like to think I'm not in the neverLabour camp. But Jesus they make it difficult.
Have you ever voted other than Tory?
Big question Roger, have you ever voted Tory? I would like to think that I too would not be in the never labour camp, but Jesus they made it difficult for me when it really mattered during the Blair years. As for Gordon Brown, thanks for nothing... The man who delivered devolution thinking that it would create a Scottish Labour fiefdom with a voting system that would never deliver a majority whatever the government at Westminster despite Scottish Labour being dominant, and then Scottish Labour lost it to the SNP, and for the last 15 years... From where I am standing, the Scottish Conservatives have spent more time shoring up the Union than Scottish Labour has done since 1999
The biggest problem with devolution wasn't the fact that it happened in the first place, but the incompetence of the execution - and Labour and the Tories must now be regarded as equally culpable, given that one established the system and the other has made no attempt to correct its deficiencies over the last thirteen years.
In the Scottish Parliament, you have a body with an immense aggregation of both administrative and legislative authority, but with revenue raising powers not that much greater than those of a county council. It controls the bulk of Scotland's domestic spending, but is almost entirely dependent on handouts from Westminster to fund it. This leaves the Scottish Government to take credit for most of the nice stuff, like building shiny new hospitals, and ferries (OK, maybe we'll gloss over those,) and handouts like free prescriptions that its neighbours don't get, whilst blaming its problems on the negligence and tight-fistedness, real or perceived, of the UK Government, the main role of which in Scotland is now the unpopular business of tax collection. It's a custom-built grievance machine.
All of this, and the West Lothian Question left unresolved, and the ridiculous Barnett Formula effectively left pickled in aspic for the rest of time because of the inexplicable refusal of anyone even to contemplate replacing it with a logical system of calculation for transfer payments. The entire set-up is a textbook example of constitutional vandalism, presided over to date by seven different UK Prime Ministers, none of whom has shown the least inclination to address the litany of problems with the Union as it burns down around them.
You mean it's all the main Unionist parties' fault? We'll make a nat of you yet.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
I had to check it wasn’t a parody account. What planet are these people on? Do they have even the most basic understanding of the concept of “democracy” ??!!!
Yes they do.
If you believe that the UK is a democracy, despite the existence of the House of Lords (and most people do); and you believe that female succession is an improvement vs strict make primogeniture (most people who care do); then logically the change makes the UK a better democracy.
FWIW “a better democracy” is not the same as “more democratic”
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
If that were replicated across the country at the next General Election, we would expect the liberal Democrats to lose 67 of their 14 MPs
If anyone can do that, Ed Davey can.
Serious local factors in South Cambridgeshire though. There are plans for a big Congestion Charge scheme in Cambridge, which is very controversial and the Conservatives are the only party against it.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
No it really doesn't.
Disagree. Generous state pensions ought, in theory, to be perfectly affordable. The reason they aren't is that the wealthier codgers won't accept the quid pro quo, which is that everyone's asset wealth - including, crucially, theirs - needs to be taxed substantially more heavily to finance them.
We can't afford to give less well off folk a decent basic standard of living, and we can't repair our crumbling infrastructure and public services either, because everybody wants nice things but everybody also expects anyone else but themselves to cover the cost. 'twas ever thus.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Like I said, buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Like I said, buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance.
You mean by not stopping the stupidity?
Next you will be suggesting that leading the Police complaints handling organisation means he is somehow responsible for the behaviour of the Police.
With an unpleasant attitude like that… you’re the kind of person who would object to the Peerage he deserves, aren’t you?
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Like I said, buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance.
You mean by not stopping the stupidity?
Next you will be suggesting that leading the Police complaints handling organisation means he is somehow responsible for the behaviour of the Police.
With an unpleasant attitude like that… you’re the kind of person who would object to the Peerage he deserves, aren’t you?
Absolutely
On a more serious point, I don't see the practical point* of all these silly bodies. All they really show is how weak the management is.
But in the case of the Met, how many last chance saloons does it need? It's been messing up for eighty years. Time to break it up into smaller forces.
*I fully understand they're actually there as venal offices for party hacks.
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Like I said, buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance.
You mean by not stopping the stupidity?
Next you will be suggesting that leading the Police complaints handling organisation means he is somehow responsible for the behaviour of the Police.
With an unpleasant attitude like that… you’re the kind of person who would object to the Peerage he deserves, aren’t you?
Absolutely
On a more serious point, I don't see the practical point* of all these silly bodies. All they really show is how weak the management is.
But in the case of the Met, how many last chance saloons does it need? It's been messing up for eighty years. Time to break it up into smaller forces.
*I fully understand they're actually there as venal offices for party hacks.
It is hard to see how breaking the Met into smaller forces will help, although I dare say it will happen when a future Home Secretary sees it as something they can achieve in a couple of years and write themselves into the history books.
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Which legal bodies reinstated them?
He can't remove them before a court finds them guilty. Hence they are paid for years before he can finally fire the gross misconduct gun.
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Which legal bodies reinstated them?
Is it not disturbing that the Met Commissioner, in railing against readmitting bad coppers, is also railing against law and due process?
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Which legal bodies reinstated them?
Is it not disturbing that the Met Commissioner, in railing against readmitting bad coppers, is also railing against law and due process?
He's merely emphasising the cost of a criminal justice systems that doesn't work (in a timely manner if you are being generous).
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Which legal bodies reinstated them?
He can't remove them before a court finds them guilty. Hence they are paid for years before he can finally fire the gross misconduct gun.
If that is the case then it is peculiar to the police. Any other employer who catches someone stealing, for example, is perfectly entitled to dismiss them before any criminal proceedings even commence.
From my recollection the reinstatement came from appeal bodies to whom the police officer had a right of appeal. These organisations are, in part, a quid pro quo for the restrictions on strike action etc. I think in principle that is only fair but like so many other parts of the public sector the time taken for resolution of matters is unacceptably long and the resources tied up in them significantly reduces the service.
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Which legal bodies reinstated them?
Is it not disturbing that the Met Commissioner, in railing against readmitting bad coppers, is also railing against law and due process?
We do, however, have this problem in education to. Pupils who have been actually violent have been ordered by courts to be readmitted to schools, because specific forms and procedures were not followed.
This can lead to bizarre situations. Once, I was ordered to write a report for a student who had not been in my lessons for six months, because she was still technically on roll while we went through the paperwork to expel her.
She had been expelled for beating up the Deputy Head. Right outside my classroom windows...
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
There is no thing that is unaffordable. Every single thing looked at individually is affordable. If this were not so BBC R4 Today and a host of other media things would lose their principal content providers.
What is unaffordable is everything collectively we try to afford.
IMHO the greatest single unconscious bias of the BBC (and many others) is the general and generous coverage given to everyone who wants 'more resources' given by 'government' (ie me) to project X. This, along with its folie a deux partner 'awareness raising' is a curse of the age.
The bias consists of assuming the state is the best allocator of resource, and failing to place all individual claims on resource in a context of cost and priority.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Like I said, buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance.
You mean by not stopping the stupidity?
Next you will be suggesting that leading the Police complaints handling organisation means he is somehow responsible for the behaviour of the Police.
With an unpleasant attitude like that… you’re the kind of person who would object to the Peerage he deserves, aren’t you?
Absolutely
On a more serious point, I don't see the practical point* of all these silly bodies. All they really show is how weak the management is.
But in the case of the Met, how many last chance saloons does it need? It's been messing up for eighty years. Time to break it up into smaller forces.
*I fully understand they're actually there as venal offices for party hacks.
Some stories have run in different forms literally all my life. Abuse of power within the Met is one of them. I was born in the 1950s. Don't hold your breath or place any bets.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Like I said, buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance.
You mean by not stopping the stupidity?
Next you will be suggesting that leading the Police complaints handling organisation means he is somehow responsible for the behaviour of the Police.
With an unpleasant attitude like that… you’re the kind of person who would object to the Peerage he deserves, aren’t you?
Absolutely
On a more serious point, I don't see the practical point* of all these silly bodies. All they really show is how weak the management is.
But in the case of the Met, how many last chance saloons does it need? It's been messing up for eighty years. Time to break it up into smaller forces.
*I fully understand they're actually there as venal offices for party hacks.
Some stories have run in different forms literally all my life. Abuse of power within the Met is one of them. I was born in the 1950s. Don't hold your breath or place any bets.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
There is no thing that is unaffordable. Every single thing looked at individually is affordable. If this were not so BBC R4 Today and a host of other media things would lose their principal content providers.
What is unaffordable is everything collectively we try to afford.
IMHO the greatest single unconscious bias of the BBC (and many others) is the general and generous coverage given to everyone who wants 'more resources' given by 'government' (ie me) to project X. This, along with its folie a deux partner 'awareness raising' is a curse of the age.
The bias consists of assuming the state is the best allocator of resource, and failing to place all individual claims on resource in a context of cost and priority.
The standard argument used by the proponent of more resources for Project X , asking for £ α is to identify Project Y on which the Government has already spent £ β (where β > α ).
And then say "If the Govt can afford to spend £ β on Project Y, it can afford £ α on Project X"
If that were replicated across the country at the next General Election, we would expect the liberal Democrats to lose 67 of their 14 MPs
Something’s been up in local elections recently. Tories doing a lot better than the polls, consistently. Whereas they regularly underperformed vs polls under Boris.
My pet theory for this is that the recent unpopularity of the government is mainly happening in lower engagement voters, the sort who rarely vote in council by-elections . Whereas in the Boris days the disgusted professional class were the biggest opponents.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
There is no thing that is unaffordable. Every single thing looked at individually is affordable. If this were not so BBC R4 Today and a host of other media things would lose their principal content providers.
What is unaffordable is everything collectively we try to afford.
IMHO the greatest single unconscious bias of the BBC (and many others) is the general and generous coverage given to everyone who wants 'more resources' given by 'government' (ie me) to project X. This, along with its folie a deux partner 'awareness raising' is a curse of the age.
The bias consists of assuming the state is the best allocator of resource, and failing to place all individual claims on resource in a context of cost and priority.
The standard argument used by the proponent of more resources for Project X , asking for £ α is to identify Project Y on which the Government has already spent £ β (where β > α ).
And then say "If the Govt can afford to spend £ β on Project Y, it can afford £ α on Project X"
That of course is what the Labour party do all the time. When she ded and abetted by the TV media it's a powerful tool for raising expectations which can never be met - the original 'me too' movement.
If that were replicated across the country at the next General Election, we would expect the liberal Democrats to lose 67 of their 14 MPs
Something’s been up in local elections recently. Tories doing a lot better than the polls, consistently. Whereas they regularly underperformed vs polls under Boris.
My pet theory for this is that the recent unpopularity of the government is mainly happening in lower engagement voters, the sort who rarely vote in council by-elections . Whereas in the Boris days the disgusted professional class were the biggest opponents.
I think, for Cottenham, @Stuartinromford has correctly identified the reason.
It is a very large village (with all the things that villages in Wales don't have, like a bank, a GP, a school, a supermarket, independent food stores).
But 90 % of the folks there will work in Cambridge (a few miles away, very convenient for the Science Park and the University departments to the North of the City).
They live there because £500 000 buys them an attractive, detached family home with a big garden in Cottenham, or an ex-council house in Cherry Hinton in the City.
They now face being charged £5 a day to drive into Cambridge.
I think this will become a real problem for the LibDems in South Cambridgeshire -- the folks who will benefit from the congestion charge are the Labour voting city, and the folks who will pay are the LibDem voting affluent commuter villages and towns round it.
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
What's this New Upper 10,000 - is it a commonly agreed term or something you have just made up?
It feels like a construct by someone of the Old Upper 10,000 who feels some other self-entitled bastards have taken their place.
He says 'have committed criminality' - that indicates that they've been convicted of their crimes, no?
In some cases yes. But again, in principle, that is ok. Suppose a police officer gets done for possession of drugs. He may be an exemplary officer at work. He may have his drug habit under control. Obviously there are risks. He may be vulnerable to extortion or blackmail. His habit may be not as under control as he thinks. But should he automatically be dismissed?
Or take someone, and these were the cases the Head of the Met was complaining about, who is done for domestic violence. Their marriage has broken up, possibly because of the time spent on duty and the pressure it brings. Under exceptional pressure the man lashes out, once. Do you dismiss him if his work is otherwise satisfactory or do you look at the circumstances, the risk of repetition, his history, how he treats female colleagues at work etc etc?
The complaint is really that this "looking" has taken too long and in too many cases peoples' histories have not been properly considered and accurate information about, for example, their attitude towards women has not been obtained. The appeal boards have fallen under the sway of the Police Federation and have proven too tolerant or too willing to allow the officer to carry on. But these things are not habile to simple solutions and the questions are not as black and white as some are trying to suggest.
If that were replicated across the country at the next General Election, we would expect the liberal Democrats to lose 67 of their 14 MPs
Something’s been up in local elections recently. Tories doing a lot better than the polls, consistently. Whereas they regularly underperformed vs polls under Boris.
My pet theory for this is that the recent unpopularity of the government is mainly happening in lower engagement voters, the sort who rarely vote in council by-elections . Whereas in the Boris days the disgusted professional class were the biggest opponents.
If your theory's correct we can expect to see the Tories do relatively well in the May elections, and Sunak will be safe.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
There is no thing that is unaffordable. Every single thing looked at individually is affordable. If this were not so BBC R4 Today and a host of other media things would lose their principal content providers.
What is unaffordable is everything collectively we try to afford.
IMHO the greatest single unconscious bias of the BBC (and many others) is the general and generous coverage given to everyone who wants 'more resources' given by 'government' (ie me) to project X. This, along with its folie a deux partner 'awareness raising' is a curse of the age.
The bias consists of assuming the state is the best allocator of resource, and failing to place all individual claims on resource in a context of cost and priority.
The standard argument used by the proponent of more resources for Project X , asking for £ α is to identify Project Y on which the Government has already spent £ β (where β > α ).
And then say "If the Govt can afford to spend £ β on Project Y, it can afford £ α on Project X"
That of course is what the Labour party do all the time. When she ded and abetted by the TV media it's a powerful tool for raising expectations which can never be met - the original 'me too' movement.
To be fair, it is a universal human trait.
I have been on committees which are in charge of disbursing funds from a (fixed) budget, and this argument is used all the time.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
What's this New Upper 10,000 - is it a commonly agreed term or something you have just made up?
It feels like a construct by someone of the Old Upper 10,000 who feels some other self-entitled bastards have taken their place.
Yes, why can't they buy their sinecures like everyone else by facilitating £800 000 loans to the Prime Minister?
Ollie Robinson needs to STFU. Hubris is your friend.
England could give Australia a "good hiding" in this summer's Ashes, says seam bowler Ollie Robinson.
The series begins at Edgbaston on 1 June as England look to recover from a 4-0 defeat down under last winter.
England then lost to West Indies but have since beaten New Zealand, South Africa and Pakistan in Test series, and won 10 of their past 12 Test matches.
"With the team and squad we have at the moment it's such an exciting time to play Australia at home," Robinson said.
He told BBC Radio Sussex: "When we went to Australia we weren't quite at our best. I really feel we could get one over them [this summer] and give them a good hiding.
It will be a non-issue in the May elections (low turn-out, engaged voters etc.) but will cause a massive crisis for the GE, especially if the result is tight.
At the GE I foresee lots of angry voters being turned away, long queues, every narrow result being called into question, legal challenges etc. A complete mess in other words.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
What's this New Upper 10,000 - is it a commonly agreed term or something you have just made up?
It feels like a construct by someone of the Old Upper 10,000 who feels some other self-entitled bastards have taken their place.
Yes, why can't they buy their sinecures like everyone else by facilitating £800 000 loans to the Prime Minister?
Good point. Are Richard Sharp and Tim Davie, Old Upper 10,000 or New Upper 10,000? Or both?
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
What's this New Upper 10,000 - is it a commonly agreed term or something you have just made up?
It feels like a construct by someone of the Old Upper 10,000 who feels some other self-entitled bastards have taken their place.
Yes, why can't they buy their sinecures like everyone else by facilitating £800 000 loans to the Prime Minister?
The NU10K is just like the OLD10K
A smattering of meritocracy is the very thin veneer.
The purpose of such apparatchiks is the protection of each other and the existing system.
If you want real change, then you want real people.
The first step is to realise the game.
Look out for the people who glide from organisation to organisation. 6 figures plus perks plus pension plus plus plus. The penalty for failure is a payoff and a job paying more money.
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
There is no thing that is unaffordable. Every single thing looked at individually is affordable. If this were not so BBC R4 Today and a host of other media things would lose their principal content providers.
What is unaffordable is everything collectively we try to afford.
IMHO the greatest single unconscious bias of the BBC (and many others) is the general and generous coverage given to everyone who wants 'more resources' given by 'government' (ie me) to project X. This, along with its folie a deux partner 'awareness raising' is a curse of the age.
The bias consists of assuming the state is the best allocator of resource, and failing to place all individual claims on resource in a context of cost and priority.
The standard argument used by the proponent of more resources for Project X , asking for £ α is to identify Project Y on which the Government has already spent £ β (where β > α ).
And then say "If the Govt can afford to spend £ β on Project Y, it can afford £ α on Project X"
That of course is what the Labour party do all the time. When she ded and abetted by the TV media it's a powerful tool for raising expectations which can never be met - the original 'me too' movement.
Yes; all oppositions do it. The media, in order to be unbiased, should cover all such stories as having at least two sides. The heartwarming people who want more resources for any project whatever have of course a natural advantage - they are all in some sense good causes. Covering these projects in an non biased way is hard but essential.
BTW recently the BBC reported that 110 (I think) childrens' charities had written to the government telling it to spend more and do more on something or other. At no point did the BBC see the irony of 110 charities spending their resources on telling the government to spend more money instead of doing it themselves.
It will be a non-issue in the May elections (low turn-out, engaged voters etc.) but will cause a massive crisis for the GE, especially if the result is tight.
At the GE I foresee lots of angry voters being turned away, long queues, every narrow result being called into question, legal challenges etc. A complete mess in other words.
You mean Labour voters less like,ly to.have ID. ? Most people have ID whether it be a bus pass passport or driving license. I have carried ID in one form or another for over 50 yrs. No inconvenience for me at the polling station.
It will be a non-issue in the May elections (low turn-out, engaged voters etc.) but will cause a massive crisis for the GE, especially if the result is tight.
At the GE I foresee lots of angry voters being turned away, long queues, every narrow result being called into question, legal challenges etc. A complete mess in other words.
Another triumph for the Tories.. They seem to have the Merda-as touch. The aroma of effluent follows them in everything they seem to do these days.
As for the budget. the reaction could hardly be more "Meh". While the fact that this is not the financial equivalent of a dirty protest is a clear improvement on the horror show of the past two years, the reality is that Tories seem to think that not burning down the house should get them a reward.
It wont, the punters now just want them gone- as soon as possible.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
He’s worked for OFQUAL.
A feature of many of the New Upper 10,000 is to not actually do very much with their shiny jobs. Just coast along and then off to the next one. This helps not upset other NU10Kers.
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
’not doing much’ would be acceptable. ‘Buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance’ is rather more unfortunate.
No no no.
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Like I said, buggering up the exam system through ignorance and arrogance.
You mean by not stopping the stupidity?
Next you will be suggesting that leading the Police complaints handling organisation means he is somehow responsible for the behaviour of the Police.
With an unpleasant attitude like that… you’re the kind of person who would object to the Peerage he deserves, aren’t you?
Absolutely
On a more serious point, I don't see the practical point* of all these silly bodies. All they really show is how weak the management is.
But in the case of the Met, how many last chance saloons does it need? It's been messing up for eighty years. Time to break it up into smaller forces.
*I fully understand they're actually there as venal offices for party hacks.
It is hard to see how breaking the Met into smaller forces will help, although I dare say it will happen when a future Home Secretary sees it as something they can achieve in a couple of years and write themselves into the history books.
There is a plausible argument that many organisations need to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt from scratch every now and again.
If they are smaller, it is easier. Think Too Bog To Fail. Think SVB - gone in a weekend VS RBS
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
Because when you consider what police have to do at its worst the pool from which they recruit is very small, and curved towards certain personality types. St Francis and hesitant self deprecating liberals are standing modestly at the back of the queue. With me.
Not suprised. The hectoring harsh tone of Nicola Sturgeon is enough to.put anyone off.
Not sure that her tone has got any more hectoring over the last couple of years. What has happened is the lack of a clear path to a second referendum. Nicola tried to cover this with the bizarre referral to the Supreme Court which even her senior Law Officer could not support, but it has been obvious for some time that there is no clear way forward.
On topic, one thing that's striking is how well the LD splits match the overall country splits, even though the LDs are too small a group to have much impact on the overall country splits. LDs - aligned with the country as a whole and sweeping to power at the next GE!
(Three only flaw being that LD voting intention is not very well aligned with country voting intention )
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
Not suprised. The hectoring harsh tone of Nicola Sturgeon is enough to.put anyone off.
Good morning one and all! That’s a greeting, not a comment on the weather, as it’s raining here. St. Nicola’s halo has practically fallen off.
All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
Politics is the only career in which assassination is success.
Might just be me, but something about the BBC report on the french pension reform issue seems weirdly off and un-BBC like. 'Obiviously' this, and talk of making France look unreformable. Reminds me of when they had an article mentioning 'gaffe prone Biden'.
But whenever a government invokes the 49:3, it can be sure it will be accused straight away of riding roughshod over the will of the people.
In fact, it has been used precisely 100 times in the more than 60 years of the Fifth Republic, and by governments of all shades.
Obviously, it tends to be used more frequently by governments that do not have an in-built majority in parliament, such as the socialist Michel Rocard's in the 1980s and Élisabeth Borne's today.
She has in fact already used it several times, but those occasions were for public finance bills which were less controversial.
Use of the procedure is a way to bypass a vote which might be lost, but the down side for the government is that the opposition parties can immediately table a vote of no-confidence.
If these are voted through, the government falls. That is a theoretical possibility now, but unlikely, because it would mean the far-right, the left and much of the conservative opposition all coming together.
The dispute once again makes France look unreformable. By comparison with other countries in Europe, the change to the pension age is far from dramatic.
Whatever the controversy about France raising the pension age to 64, it gives the lie to claims our state pensions, with the qualification age of 67 or 68, are unaffordable.
There is no thing that is unaffordable. Every single thing looked at individually is affordable. If this were not so BBC R4 Today and a host of other media things would lose their principal content providers.
What is unaffordable is everything collectively we try to afford.
IMHO the greatest single unconscious bias of the BBC (and many others) is the general and generous coverage given to everyone who wants 'more resources' given by 'government' (ie me) to project X. This, along with its folie a deux partner 'awareness raising' is a curse of the age.
The bias consists of assuming the state is the best allocator of resource, and failing to place all individual claims on resource in a context of cost and priority.
The standard argument used by the proponent of more resources for Project X , asking for £ α is to identify Project Y on which the Government has already spent £ β (where β > α ).
And then say "If the Govt can afford to spend £ β on Project Y, it can afford £ α on Project X"
That of course is what the Labour party do all the time. When she ded and abetted by the TV media it's a powerful tool for raising expectations which can never be met - the original 'me too' movement.
Yes; all oppositions do it. The media, in order to be unbiased, should cover all such stories as having at least two sides. The heartwarming people who want more resources for any project whatever have of course a natural advantage - they are all in some sense good causes. Covering these projects in an non biased way is hard but essential.
BTW recently the BBC reported that 110 (I think) childrens' charities had written to the government telling it to spend more and do more on something or other. At no point did the BBC see the irony of 110 charities spending their resources on telling the government to spend more money instead of doing it themselves.
The big charity sector needs a careful scrutiny.
The thing that sums up Big Charity for me is this.
In a number of them, the manager of the shops has a target. If enough volunteers show up, they can cancel the paid employees shifts. Which happens at the last minute.
The managers target is to reduce paid hours in the shop by X each month. Otherwise their job is on the line.
The cherry on top is that talking heads for such charities go on TV to declaim about food banks, cost of living crisis etc
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
I can’t remember who it was but their description of the Medway Towns as places where young men join either the BNP or the Police, sometimes both, often sticks with me.
He says 'have committed criminality' - that indicates that they've been convicted of their crimes, no?
In some cases yes. But again, in principle, that is ok. Suppose a police officer gets done for possession of drugs. He may be an exemplary officer at work. He may have his drug habit under control. Obviously there are risks. He may be vulnerable to extortion or blackmail. His habit may be not as under control as he thinks. But should he automatically be dismissed?
Or take someone, and these were the cases the Head of the Met was complaining about, who is done for domestic violence. Their marriage has broken up, possibly because of the time spent on duty and the pressure it brings. Under exceptional pressure the man lashes out, once. Do you dismiss him if his work is otherwise satisfactory or do you look at the circumstances, the risk of repetition, his history, how he treats female colleagues at work etc etc?
The complaint is really that this "looking" has taken too long and in too many cases peoples' histories have not been properly considered and accurate information about, for example, their attitude towards women has not been obtained. The appeal boards have fallen under the sway of the Police Federation and have proven too tolerant or too willing to allow the officer to carry on. But these things are not habile to simple solutions and the questions are not as black and white as some are trying to suggest.
To answer your first two questions, 'Yes', both officers should be dismissed instantly - of course they should. The police are meant to uphold the law; they cannot knowingly break the law and be trusted by the public to uphold it. I am amazed and disappointed that you think otherwise.
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
What's this New Upper 10,000 - is it a commonly agreed term or something you have just made up?
It feels like a construct by someone of the Old Upper 10,000 who feels some other self-entitled bastards have taken their place.
Yes, why can't they buy their sinecures like everyone else by facilitating £800 000 loans to the Prime Minister?
The NU10K is just like the OLD10K
A smattering of meritocracy is the very thin veneer.
The purpose of such apparatchiks is the protection of each other and the existing system.
If you want real change, then you want real people.
The first step is to realise the game.
Look out for the people who glide from organisation to organisation. 6 figures plus perks plus pension plus plus plus. The penalty for failure is a payoff and a job paying more money.
I think the old 10K was very different
They often had a regional affiliation and usually went into public service from a sense of duty (although sinecures could be attractive). Failure meant retirement - that was possible because they had independent wealth
It was neither representative nor meritocratic - but I would argue the current structure is not much of an improvement on those terms while having other disadvantages
Not suprised. The hectoring harsh tone of Nicola Sturgeon is enough to.put anyone off.
Good morning one and all! That’s a greeting, not a comment on the weather, as it’s raining here. St. Nicola’s halo has practically fallen off.
All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
Politics is the only career in which assassination is success.
There's a polynomial curve in political lies though. After the failure comes the rehabilitation. Almost all prominent politicians are more popular a decade after defenestration than they were in power, and sometimes (if they end up at NATO or the EC or UN) more powerful.
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
Not suprised. The hectoring harsh tone of Nicola Sturgeon is enough to.put anyone off.
Good morning one and all! That’s a greeting, not a comment on the weather, as it’s raining here. St. Nicola’s halo has practically fallen off.
All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
Politics is the only career in which assassination is success.
There's a polynomial curve in political lies though. After the failure comes the rehabilitation. Almost all prominent politicians are more popular a decade after defenestration than they were in power, and sometimes (if they end up at NATO or the EC or UN) more powerful.
Not only dues this report appear utterly damning, it also unclear that there are effective efforts to improve things.
This, presumably, doesn't help matters.
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Which legal bodies reinstated them?
Is it not disturbing that the Met Commissioner, in railing against readmitting bad coppers, is also railing against law and due process?
No, because a law that makes it impossible to sack rotten police officers is a bad law.
It will be a non-issue in the May elections (low turn-out, engaged voters etc.) but will cause a massive crisis for the GE, especially if the result is tight.
At the GE I foresee lots of angry voters being turned away, long queues, every narrow result being called into question, legal challenges etc. A complete mess in other words.
You mean Labour voters less like,ly to.have ID. ? Most people have ID whether it be a bus pass passport or driving license. I have carried ID in one form or another for over 50 yrs. No inconvenience for me at the polling station.
My father, who recently sadly died would not have had any id, his driving licence and passport having expired as he was at an age where he didn't need either.
Younger people who probably do have id, don't carry it around with them. Lots do everything on their phone now so don't use a wallet and when I say younger that is increasingly moving up to the 50s and 60s as several of my friends are in that situation and I am 68.
Of course when they turn up at the polling station and are turned away they can return with their passport, but will they? You could argue if they don't remember or don't return it is their fault, but why make it difficult for them.
Personally I would like to see a cut back on postal voting (limited to one off applications each time if you are going to be away or incapacitated or a facility to vote early in person at designated locations again only if you are going to be away) and opening the polling booths over Saturday and Sunday.
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
SAL NASEEM HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS EDI BOARD ADVISOR OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission- ...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
That’s the Electoral Commission fucked.
Any particular reason?
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
What's this New Upper 10,000 - is it a commonly agreed term or something you have just made up?
It feels like a construct by someone of the Old Upper 10,000 who feels some other self-entitled bastards have taken their place.
Yes, why can't they buy their sinecures like everyone else by facilitating £800 000 loans to the Prime Minister?
The NU10K is just like the OLD10K
A smattering of meritocracy is the very thin veneer.
The purpose of such apparatchiks is the protection of each other and the existing system.
If you want real change, then you want real people.
The first step is to realise the game.
Look out for the people who glide from organisation to organisation. 6 figures plus perks plus pension plus plus plus. The penalty for failure is a payoff and a job paying more money.
I think the old 10K was very different
They often had a regional affiliation and usually went into public service from a sense of duty (although sinecures could be attractive). Failure meant retirement - that was possible because they had independent wealth
It was neither representative nor meritocratic - but I would argue the current structure is not much of an improvement on those terms while having other disadvantages
That’s romanticisation - the current lot probably have the same numbers of idealists, reformers and time wasting space fillers.
I am reminded of a quote by Churchill (as First Lord of the Admiralty) on the relative costs of Dukes and Dreadnoughts.
Mind you, Churchill was a classic member of OLD10K. Fisher was another - of the meritocratic entrance breed, of which there was always an element.
On topic, one thing that's striking is how well the LD splits match the overall country splits, even though the LDs are too small a group to have much impact on the overall country splits. LDs - aligned with the country as a whole and sweeping to power at the next GE!
(Three only flaw being that LD voting intention is not very well aligned with country voting intention )
As RCS pointed out earlier on the swing in South Cambridgeshire last night all LD MPs would be wiped out.
Rishi is lucky the 2019 local elections were so bad for the Tories and so good for the LDs, and many home counties councils went LD or Independent as if they have become unpopular there could be backlash to the Tories. Even if the Conservatives do still likely lose councils in the Midlands and North of England to Labour
If that were replicated across the country at the next General Election, we would expect the liberal Democrats to lose 67 of their 14 MPs
Something’s been up in local elections recently. Tories doing a lot better than the polls, consistently. Whereas they regularly underperformed vs polls under Boris.
My pet theory for this is that the recent unpopularity of the government is mainly happening in lower engagement voters, the sort who rarely vote in council by-elections . Whereas in the Boris days the disgusted professional class were the biggest opponents.
If your theory's correct we can expect to see the Tories do relatively well in the May elections, and Sunak will be safe.
Labour never seem to match their poll ratings in local elections, whereas the Conservatives do.
I’d expect Labour’s lead to still be pretty healthy in May, but closer to 10% than 20%
It will be a non-issue in the May elections (low turn-out, engaged voters etc.) but will cause a massive crisis for the GE, especially if the result is tight.
At the GE I foresee lots of angry voters being turned away, long queues, every narrow result being called into question, legal challenges etc. A complete mess in other words.
You mean Labour voters less like,ly to.have ID. ? Most people have ID whether it be a bus pass passport or driving license. I have carried ID in one form or another for over 50 yrs. No inconvenience for me at the polling station.
My father, who recently sadly died would not have had any id, his driving licence and passport having expired as he was at an age where he didn't need either.
Younger people who probably do have id, don't carry it around with them. Lots do everything on their phone now so don't use a wallet and when I say younger that is increasingly moving up to the 50s and 60s as several of my friends are in that situation and I am 68.
Of course when they turn up at the polling station and are turned away they can return with their passport, but will they? You could argue if they don't remember or don't return it is their fault, but why make it difficult for them.
Personally I would like to see a cut back on postal voting (limited to one off applications each time if you are going to be away or incapacitated or a facility to vote early in person at designated locations again only if you are going to be away) and opening the polling booths over Saturday and Sunday.
There is an interesting twist on bus passes as photo ID for voting. Only government-issued passes are approved, not local authority ones. Cynics might wonder if that is because the latter are more likely to be in Labour districts.
On topic, one thing that's striking is how well the LD splits match the overall country splits, even though the LDs are too small a group to have much impact on the overall country splits. LDs - aligned with the country as a whole and sweeping to power at the next GE!
(Three only flaw being that LD voting intention is not very well aligned with country voting intention )
When you look at the cross tabs in national polls, LD support is wide but shallow. The percentage varies much less with age than the Tories, less with geography than Labour etc.
It is both a weakness (because of FPTP) and a strength of the party to represent all classes and parts of the country.
Comments
But, I think American politics is sufficiently mad (to an extent I'm not sure any of us truly understand) that I don't think it can be ruled out.
Nadine Dorries spent her time as Culture Secretary thinking she was being really tough on the BBC - talking about scrapping the Licence Fee etc.
In fact, the BBC ran rings round her and she agreed a Licence Fee settlement of a two year freeze and then CPI increases for four years after that (in contrast George Osborne froze it for six years).
This was in spite of the fact that the previous settlement in 2017 was done on the basis the BBC would fund all over 75s licences which they aren't actually now doing - which has already given the BBC a large unexpected revenue boost of hundreds of millions of pounds.
Now, the rise in April 2024 will be based on CPI but historically this has always been calculated as the average of the CPI for 18 months to 6 months before the increase date - ie October 2022 to September 2023. So the current over 10% CPI will be in the calculation.
In the Budget documents, the OBR has said it expects the Licence Fee to rise by 8.2% in April 2024 - from £159 to £172 - the biggest rise in 20 years.
Guess what - Nadine Dorries now wants it frozen. Yet she was the Minister who agreed this deal. And she thought she was being tough!
Anyway, at least the Telegraph have caught up with what is going on and have put it on their front page.
The question now is can the Govt say they are changing the CPI figure used - preferably to use the most up to date CPI figure - say the December 2023 figure now forecast to be 3.9%.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/16/bbc-licence-fee-could-rise-13-next-year-government-pressure/
@cwowestmidlands
“Brilliant work being done on this bill which will hopefully become law and lead to a better democracy @cwowomen “
https://twitter.com/cwowestmidlands/status/1636433244378877952
Retweeting this video;
https://twitter.com/tory_women/status/1636343644402638848
A better democracy?
I had to check it wasn’t a parody account. What planet are these people on? Do they have even the most basic understanding of the concept of “democracy” ??!!!
Compelling evidence that the broadcaster holds them in utter contempt and lies to them constantly is enough affect the trust of ... barely a fifth of Fox News viewers.
And has hardly effected the viewing figures at all.
21% of Fox News Viewers Trust Network Less After Texts Revealed in Dominion Lawsuit
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-viewers-less-trust-1235554399/
But no one would believe such an absurd idea.
But on new boundaries Conservatives would certainly lose both to Labour.
Met police on ‘last chance’ as Casey report to condemn failure to change
Exclusive: findings of official review due out on Tuesday described as ‘horrible’ and ‘atrocious’ for force
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/16/met-police-on-last-chance-as-casey-report-to-condemn-failure-to-change
...The Met faces another damning report on failings that left the serial killer Stephen Port free, and this month the police watchdog will announce whether a Met firearms officer should be referred to prosecutors over the shooting of Chris Kaba last September.
On Thursday night Kaba’s relatives said they were “concerned” by the resignations of two senior officials from the watchdog investigating the shooting.
“We have concerns that two of the senior people at the IOPC who have been overseeing the homicide investigation in this case – Michael Lockwood and Sal Naseem – have resigned during the investigation,” the family said in a statement.
“We find this unsettling and are concerned that it does not affect the nature of the IOPC decisions or their timing – we have already waited too long to know if the IOPC is seeking advice on criminal charges from the CPS.”
Lockwood, the IOPC director general, stepped down in December as he was the subject of a police probe into an historical allegation.
The departure of Naseem, the regional director for London and national lead for race discrimination, was announced this month, the organisation said....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64982978.amp
...Mr Lockwood resigned in December 2022 after becoming the subject of a police investigation, Home Secretary Suella Braverman previously revealed.
The reason for Mr Naseem's resignation has not been disclosed...
The December report:
Police watchdog head Michael Lockwood resigns amid investigation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-63848998
The head of the police watchdog has been forced to resign after becoming the subject of a police investigation, Home Secretary Suella Braverman says.
Independent Office for Police Conduct director general Michael Lockwood said on Friday that he was resigning for "personal and domestic reasons".
But on Saturday the home secretary said she had taken action after learning of the probe into a historical allegation...
...Mr Lockwood was the first person appointed to lead the IOPC when it replaced the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2018.
It handles the most serious complaints against police in England and Wales.
https://moloneysearch.com/news/106/2023-03-09/sal-naseem-has-been-appointed-as-edi-board-advisor-of-the-electoral-commission-
...Sal is currently Regional Director for London at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the first South Asian and Muslim to hold the post. He is also the national chair for the annual B.A.M.E into Leadership conference for the FDA Union. Sal was previously at the Legal Ombudsman and Ofqual, and has a strong background in regulation...
The head of the UK’s biggest police force has said it is “crazy” that he cannot sack “toxic” officers who have broken the law.
Responding to a disclosure in the Guardian that 150 officers are under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct or racism, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, admitted that the force’s vetting procedures were inadequate.
Challenged about the figures, Rowley said: “We have some very worrying cases with officers who’ve committed criminality whilst police officers and yet I’m not allowed to sack them. It’s sort of, it’s crazy.”
Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme about the 150 cases he added: “The investigation needs to take place – not all of those cases will have have a case to answer, but many of them will.”
He added: “We’ve got some officers who we sacked, but other legal bodies, who have a power to reinstate them, did. So I’ve got officers who we determined shouldn’t be police officers and yet I have to keep them. It sounds bizarre – I’m the commissioner, yet I can’t decide who my own workforce is.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/12/met-police-chief-its-crazy-i-cant-sack-toxic-officers-who-broke-the-law-mark-rowley
We shall know if they're making any kind of progress if there are large numbers of sackings. The Augean stables clearly need mucking out.
If there isn't progress then it's time to consign the Met to the dustbin of history and start again. The Casey Report may even venture and opinion as to how this process should be triggered and what could come next.
Just not in *this* country…
@Casino_Royale ’s political psychology requires him to draw such a ridiculous equivalence.
Our politics is in a dark place.
Truthfully it was at the time of the Goddard case in 1928.
But too many vested interests mean it won’t happen.
But it's cool Britannia when lefty Linekar does it.? PB politics is in a dark place....
His resume is perfect New Upper 10,000, for sure.
In the Scottish Parliament, you have a body with an immense aggregation of both administrative and legislative authority, but with revenue raising powers not that much greater than those of a county council. It controls the bulk of Scotland's domestic spending, but is almost entirely dependent on handouts from Westminster to fund it. This leaves the Scottish Government to take credit for most of the nice stuff, like building shiny new hospitals, and ferries (OK, maybe we'll gloss over those,) and handouts like free prescriptions that its neighbours don't get, whilst blaming its problems on the negligence and tight-fistedness, real or perceived, of the UK Government, the main role of which in Scotland is now the unpopular business of tax collection. It's a custom-built grievance machine.
All of this, and the West Lothian Question left unresolved, and the ridiculous Barnett Formula effectively left pickled in aspic for the rest of time because of the inexplicable refusal of anyone even to contemplate replacing it with a logical system of calculation for transfer payments. The entire set-up is a textbook example of constitutional vandalism, presided over to date by seven different UK Prime Ministers, none of whom has shown the least inclination to address the litany of problems with the Union as it burns down around them.
We can't afford to give less well off folk a decent basic standard of living, and we can't repair our crumbling infrastructure and public services either, because everybody wants nice things but everybody also expects anyone else but themselves to cover the cost. 'twas ever thus.
The venn diagram of PBers and moth trap owners...
Exiting, stage left, from the Police complaints stuff, just as it gets a bit…warm is perfect NU10K.
A noted counter example is Ursula von der Leyen, who went for the “I heroically tried to reform the organisation, but I couldn’t defeat the Forces* against me” methodology.
*Gravity, Reality, stuff like that.
If you believe that the UK is a democracy, despite the existence of the House of Lords (and most people do); and you believe that female succession is an improvement vs strict make primogeniture (most people who care do); then logically the change makes the UK a better democracy.
FWIW “a better democracy” is not the same as “more democratic”
He won’t have done that.
He oversaw a progressive, innovative program to deliver stakeholder value. I’m quite sure.
This will have involved several abstract looking awards presented to him (all staff must clap), and no actual involvement that can be proved in the actual running of the organisation or its policies.
Next you will be suggesting that leading the Police complaints handling organisation means he is somehow responsible for the behaviour of the Police.
With an unpleasant attitude like that… you’re the kind of person who would object to the Peerage he deserves, aren’t you?
On a more serious point, I don't see the practical point* of all these silly bodies. All they really show is how weak the management is.
But in the case of the Met, how many last chance saloons does it need? It's been messing up for eighty years. Time to break it up into smaller forces.
*I fully understand they're actually there as venal offices for party hacks.
From my recollection the reinstatement came from appeal bodies to whom the police officer had a right of appeal. These organisations are, in part, a quid pro quo for the restrictions on strike action etc. I think in principle that is only fair but like so many other parts of the public sector the time taken for resolution of matters is unacceptably long and the resources tied up in them significantly reduces the service.
This can lead to bizarre situations. Once, I was ordered to write a report for a student who had not been in my lessons for six months, because she was still technically on roll while we went through the paperwork to expel her.
She had been expelled for beating up the Deputy Head. Right outside my classroom windows...
What is unaffordable is everything collectively we try to afford.
IMHO the greatest single unconscious bias of the BBC (and many others) is the general and generous coverage given to everyone who wants 'more resources' given by 'government' (ie me) to project X. This, along with its folie a deux partner 'awareness raising' is a curse of the age.
The bias consists of assuming the state is the best allocator of resource, and failing to place all individual claims on resource in a context of cost and priority.
That was about the 1920s...
And then say "If the Govt can afford to spend £ β on Project Y, it can afford £ α on Project X"
polls, consistently. Whereas they regularly underperformed vs polls under Boris.
My pet theory for this is that the recent unpopularity of the government is mainly happening in lower engagement voters, the sort who rarely vote in council by-elections . Whereas in the Boris days the disgusted professional class were the biggest opponents.
It is a very large village (with all the things that villages in Wales don't have, like a bank, a GP, a school, a supermarket, independent food stores).
But 90 % of the folks there will work in Cambridge (a few miles away, very convenient for the Science Park and the University departments to the North of the City).
They live there because £500 000 buys them an attractive, detached family home with a big garden in Cottenham, or an ex-council house in Cherry Hinton in the City.
They now face being charged £5 a day to drive into Cambridge.
I think this will become a real problem for the LibDems in South Cambridgeshire -- the folks who will benefit from the congestion charge are the Labour voting city, and the folks who will pay are the LibDem voting affluent commuter villages and towns round it.
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1636482480310984704?t=lEUaVvv2PGj9Cc9D4BJT-Q&s=19
A number of police officers are facing investigation after it was alleged that they viewed bestiality images on a WhatsApp group.
A court in Kilmarnock was told that Gordon Stewart was found with sexual images involving a person and an animal on his phone.
It later emerged that the images had been shared by other officers on a police WhatsApp group. Yesterday the court was told that for two years the constables’ chat group shared misogynistic, obscene and racist terms.
Last month Sergeant Steve Evans kept his job with Hertfordshire police after he shared extreme animal pornography with colleagues. Evans circulated a video of the children’s cartoon character Peppa Pig that changed to a clip of a man performing a sex act on a pig. Charlie Hall, the chief constable, gave him a final warning, stating: “I believe the public interest in this case is best served by retaining the officer.”
In 2019 a court ruled that Police Scotland officers who allegedly shared offensive content over WhatsApp should face disciplinary action after their legal challenge to halt proceedings failed.
Ten officers tried to use privacy law to prevent their superiors from taking action over the messages, which are said to have had antisemitic content.
However, Lord Bannatyne ruled against them after finding that the messages could undermine public confidence in the police.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-whatsapp-group-shared-bestiality-pictures-fhpphrnv7
It feels like a construct by someone of the Old Upper 10,000 who feels some other self-entitled bastards have taken their place.
Or take someone, and these were the cases the Head of the Met was complaining about, who is done for domestic violence. Their marriage has broken up, possibly because of the time spent on duty and the pressure it brings. Under exceptional pressure the man lashes out, once. Do you dismiss him if his work is otherwise satisfactory or do you look at the circumstances, the risk of repetition, his history, how he treats female colleagues at work etc etc?
The complaint is really that this "looking" has taken too long and in too many cases peoples' histories have not been properly considered and accurate information about, for example, their attitude towards women has not been obtained. The appeal boards have fallen under the sway of the Police Federation and have proven too tolerant or too willing to allow the officer to carry on. But these things are not habile to simple solutions and the questions are not as black and white as some are trying to suggest.
I have been on committees which are in charge of disbursing funds from a (fixed) budget, and this argument is used all the time.
England could give Australia a "good hiding" in this summer's Ashes, says seam bowler Ollie Robinson.
The series begins at Edgbaston on 1 June as England look to recover from a 4-0 defeat down under last winter.
England then lost to West Indies but have since beaten New Zealand, South Africa and Pakistan in Test series, and won 10 of their past 12 Test matches.
"With the team and squad we have at the moment it's such an exciting time to play Australia at home," Robinson said.
He told BBC Radio Sussex: "When we went to Australia we weren't quite at our best. I really feel we could get one over them [this summer] and give them a good hiding.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/64978779
It will be a non-issue in the May elections (low turn-out, engaged voters etc.) but will cause a massive crisis for the GE, especially if the result is tight.
At the GE I foresee lots of angry voters being turned away, long queues, every narrow result being called into question, legal challenges etc. A complete mess in other words.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/17/parasitic-fungus-that-infects-and-kills-spiders-discovered-in-brazil-aoe
A smattering of meritocracy is the very thin veneer.
The purpose of such apparatchiks is the protection of each other and the existing system.
If you want real change, then you want real people.
The first step is to realise the game.
Look out for the people who glide from organisation to organisation. 6 figures plus perks plus pension plus plus plus. The penalty for failure is a payoff and a job paying more money.
BTW recently the BBC reported that 110 (I think) childrens' charities had written to the government telling it to spend more and do more on something or other. At no point did the BBC see the irony of 110 charities spending their resources on telling the government to spend more money instead of doing it themselves.
The big charity sector needs a careful scrutiny.
As for the budget. the reaction could hardly be more "Meh". While the fact that this is not the financial equivalent of a dirty protest is a clear improvement on the horror show of the past two years, the reality is that Tories seem to think that not burning down the house should get them a reward.
It wont, the punters now just want them gone- as soon as possible.
If they are smaller, it is easier. Think Too Bog To Fail. Think SVB - gone in a weekend VS RBS
St. Nicola’s halo has practically fallen off.
(Three only flaw being that LD voting intention is not very well aligned with country voting intention
Politics is the only career in which assassination is success.
In a number of them, the manager of the shops has a target. If enough volunteers show up, they can cancel the paid employees shifts. Which happens at the last minute.
The managers target is to reduce paid hours in the shop by X each month. Otherwise their job is on the line.
The cherry on top is that talking heads for such charities go on TV to declaim about food banks, cost of living crisis etc
They often had a regional affiliation and usually went into public service from a sense of duty (although sinecures could be attractive). Failure meant retirement - that was possible because they had independent wealth
It was neither representative nor meritocratic - but I would argue the current structure is not much of an improvement on those terms while having other disadvantages
Younger people who probably do have id, don't carry it around with them. Lots do everything on their phone now so don't use a wallet and when I say younger that is increasingly moving up to the 50s and 60s as several of my friends are in that situation and I am 68.
Of course when they turn up at the polling station and are turned away they can return with their passport, but will they? You could argue if they don't remember or don't return it is their fault, but why make it difficult for them.
Personally I would like to see a cut back on postal voting (limited to one off applications each time if you are going to be away or incapacitated or a facility to vote early in person at designated locations again only if you are going to be away) and opening the polling booths over Saturday and Sunday.
I am reminded of a quote by Churchill (as First Lord of the Admiralty) on the relative costs of Dukes and Dreadnoughts.
Mind you, Churchill was a classic member of OLD10K. Fisher was another - of the meritocratic entrance breed, of which there was always an element.
Rishi is lucky the 2019 local elections were so bad for the Tories and so good for the LDs, and many home counties councils went LD or Independent as if they have become unpopular there could be backlash to the Tories. Even if the Conservatives do still likely lose councils in the Midlands and North of England to Labour
I’d expect Labour’s lead to still be pretty healthy in May, but closer to 10% than 20%
It is both a weakness (because of FPTP) and a strength of the party to represent all classes and parts of the country.