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.
I think that's a bit unreasonable. Obviously I have an interest since I work for a big charity (we don't have shops so I can't comment on that aspect). Our objective is to raise standards of animal welfare on farms, by persuading the Government to legislate accordingly and to assist farmers in the transition, as well as to refrain from giving tariff-free access to imports produced to standards that are illegal in Britain (because that undercuts British farmers unfairly).
We don't have any non-legislative way to achieve any of that beyond a bit of persuasion of individual farmers and consumers. The tool to achieve it is principally to draw public attention to unpleasant practices and encourage the Government to stop them, by asking supporters to write to MPs and ministers to say they'd like that. Writing a letter to the Government costs literally almost nothing, so "spending their resources" is an OTT way of putting it.
Do politicians have to weigh up the different priorities, taking public opinion into account? Absolutely. Is it worrying that charities use the money of supporters (we have zero state funding) to seek to draw attention to their areas of interest? Surely not. All this is the normal democratic process.
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.
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.
It should be a black mark against anyone up for a job in public service to have been trained by Common Purpose. Then we might see some progress.
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.
Some occupations can and should be held to higher standards due to the nature and power of their roles.
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.
I found it very harsh uncompromising such that , no only did I not want to.listen to it, I just had to switch off or onto something else. I suspect Sturgeon has done a lot of damage to the Party. A one party state is never a good thing as we have witnessed countless times in the UK whether it be at local, county or national level.
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.
Except the LDs don't represent all classes now.
The average LD voter now is an AB, upper middle class graduate living in the South of England who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
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
Yes. And quite a few charities that devote resources to denounce government are themselves massively funded by that same government (ie us).
A lot of big charities have become businesses really, with top salaries to match.
(I support a small charity operating in east Africa. When trustees go from the uk to visit the project they pay their own way 100%).
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.
Once they no longer have any power, they can eventually become useless, national treasures (eg Tony Wedgwood-Benn).
They are impotent & toothless. They are wheeled out for R4 interviews or a much-loved chat show performance or a speaking tour.
But, they are down on the floor with the rest of us, and we secretly feel a little embarrassed for them
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.
Are they? I'd have expected there are more Tory LAs overall, but dont have figures to hand. Or is it that the Tory LAs are in areas with limited bus use?
1/6 of all rail journeys in the UK are now on Crossrail. What an incredible success.
In the week that Fuel Duty was frozen again, at a cumulative cost to the Treasury of £80 billion, it's a tragedy that funding has been diverted from HS2, bus services, Northern Powerhouse, cycle infrastructure etc etc
There is an enormous latent demand for public transport and active travel that is untapped across most of the country. Endless positive externalities.
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.
Except the LDs don't represent all classes now.
The average LD voter now is an AB, upper middle class graduate living in the South of England who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
Barely any working class voters vote LD now
Working class voters however are not idiots. They vote to achieve something on the whole. Opinions will vary as to how sensible all this is of course. But the working class votes Labour and Tory according to how they think they will exercise power for ordinary people. They vote for UKIP style parties in order to effect change by a different route, and they have succeeded (for good or ill).
The LDs will, in working class estimation, neither help them by being in power, nor help them by being an agent of the change they want. Rational choice theory applies.
If you look at history since the working class had a vote the conclusion will be they have been remarkably effective at using it. Which is why some train drivers and plumbers are paid more than some doctors and lawyers.
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's interesting to see what the decay factor in loathing for the Cons, specifically Johnson's and Truss' administrations, will be.
Although it is still the Cons and they do need to be taught a lesson at not being shit these past few years, nevertheless there is a new approach.
Inflation is subsiding, the strikes are being settled, it seems that the people in charge aren't lunatics...
All this as you say could mean much less of a shellacking than otherwise might have been the case.
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.
It should be a black mark against anyone up for a job in public service to have been trained by Common Purpose. Then we might see some progress.
Common Purpose? Blimey, there's a blast from the past.
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.
I found it very harsh uncompromising such that , no only did I not want to.listen to it, I just had to switch off or onto something else. I suspect Sturgeon has done a lot of damage to the Party. A one party state is never a good thing as we have witnessed countless times in the UK whether it be at local, county or national level.
Your political logic is based on a dislike of the West Central Belt accent?
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.
Except the LDs don't represent all classes now.
The average LD voter now is an AB, upper middle class graduate living in the South of England who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
Barely any working class voters vote LD now
There are quite a few LibDem counsellors in Sunderland city council!
It's not clear to me that restricting the quality of the competition for English* players would make them better. In my life, I've found the better the quality of those I am with, the better the standard of my work.
* And, by the way, I assume you mean British Citizens, otherwise you are suggesting that there are internal restrictions in the UK on who may work where
Though isn't the precise problem that English players are not getting a chance to work with the best?
For example England is weak in defensive* midfielders, but one of the ones chosen in this squad (Phillips) has not played a League game all season for Man City. Southgate is looking at the Championship to try to find a good DM.
While the majority of the squad play for top 6 clubs, the names pick themselves, not because of their ability, but from the paucity of other choices.
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.
I think that's a bit unreasonable. Obviously I have an interest since I work for a big charity (we don't have shops so I can't comment on that aspect). Our objective is to raise standards of animal welfare on farms, by persuading the Government to legislate accordingly and to assist farmers in the transition, as well as to refrain from giving tariff-free access to imports produced to standards that are illegal in Britain (because that undercuts British farmers unfairly).
We don't have any non-legislative way to achieve any of that beyond a bit of persuasion of individual farmers and consumers. The tool to achieve it is principally to draw public attention to unpleasant practices and encourage the Government to stop them, by asking supporters to write to MPs and ministers to say they'd like that. Writing a letter to the Government costs literally almost nothing, so "spending their resources" is an OTT way of putting it.
Do politicians have to weigh up the different priorities, taking public opinion into account? Absolutely. Is it worrying that charities use the money of supporters (we have zero state funding) to seek to draw attention to their areas of interest? Surely not. All this is the normal democratic process.
You need to spend money to raise or receive money sometimes. A bit of cash on promotion or a fancy gala at which you bring in lots of donations, that sort of thing.
Nonetheless the professional charity sector does have some bad reports about it which have to be of concern, with high costs or utter dependence on government, unclear effectiveness or just vague 'raise awareness' goals which are of questionable benefit yet get a platform to lecture as they are a charity.
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%
How much of that is down to the deluge of "two horse race" / bar charts with arrows labelled "can't win here" messaging in the run-up local elections?
Depending on where Labour lose votes, it might make the Conservative plight even worse.
1/6 of all rail journeys in the UK are now on Crossrail. What an incredible success.
In the week that Fuel Duty was frozen again, at a cumulative cost to the Treasury of £80 billion, it's a tragedy that funding has been diverted from HS2, bus services, Northern Powerhouse, cycle infrastructure etc etc
There is an enormous latent demand for public transport and active travel that is untapped across most of the country. Endless positive externalities.
And an interesting inequality angle. If you can afford to run a car in a city, you're really well off.
In rural parts of the country (like where I grew up), running a car is a major, but necessary, cost. A challenge for policy makers to get right.
I'd swap fuel duty for congestion charges, with lower rates for registered disabled etc.
Today's apparent deal with the health unions, if it sticks, will probably do the Tories more good than the budget. They really need to wind down the public sector strikes.
I suspect that when the nurses discover the consequences of the deal they won’t be happy. It’s something like a 8% hidden paycut with a one off payment that hides it
It is not a pay cut , they are getting more money than they get now. All this bollox of inflation etc, just crap you get paid what you get paid and cannot whine in 5 years that you have had a pay cut, it is a barefaced lie used by idiots. If they don't like it then they should go and get more money elsewhere.
It's not clear to me that restricting the quality of the competition for English* players would make them better. In my life, I've found the better the quality of those I am with, the better the standard of my work.
* And, by the way, I assume you mean British Citizens, otherwise you are suggesting that there are internal restrictions in the UK on who may work where
Though isn't the precise problem that English players are not getting a chance to work with the best?
For example England is weak in defensive* midfielders, but one of the ones chosen in this squad (Phillips) has not played a League game all season for Man City. Southgate is looking at the Championship to try to find a good DM.
While the majority of the squad play for top 6 clubs, the names pick themselves, not because of their ability, but from the paucity of other choices.
Picking players who aren't playing at the highest level and not picking players who are (just not in England) is eventually going to drive the wrong behaviour on the part of players. It should be better for Phillips' career - if not his bank balance - if he were still playing for Leeds instead of not playing for Man City.
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.
The public expects police officers to be people who don’t do drugs and who don’t beat up their wives. Very black and white.
Today's apparent deal with the health unions, if it sticks, will probably do the Tories more good than the budget. They really need to wind down the public sector strikes.
I suspect that when the nurses discover the consequences of the deal they won’t be happy. It’s something like a 8% hidden paycut with a one off payment that hides it
It is not a pay cut , they are getting more money than they get now. All this bollox of inflation etc, just crap you get paid what you get paid and cannot whine in 5 years that you have had a pay cut, it is a barefaced lie used by idiots. If they don't like it then they should go and get more money elsewhere.
Isn't there plenty of evidence that quite a lot of them are going- enough to make health service wobbly at best?
(In any case, the Times is reporting a 6% one-off bonus for the year ending soon and a 5% proper rise for the coming year. Have I misunderstood, because that looks like less money next year than this.)
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.
Except the LDs don't represent all classes now.
The average LD voter now is an AB, upper middle class graduate living in the South of England who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
Barely any working class voters vote LD now
If you look at the cross tab for the latest Yougov, the LDs get 10%. That is made up of 12% ABC1 and 8% of C2DE. While 15% in the South and 11% in London, it is 9% in the North and 7% in the Midlands.
Obviously not completely uniform support, but actually the minority of us LD supporters is pretty evenly spread. It is a problem with FPTP for us.
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.
I think that's a bit unreasonable. Obviously I have an interest since I work for a big charity (we don't have shops so I can't comment on that aspect). Our objective is to raise standards of animal welfare on farms, by persuading the Government to legislate accordingly and to assist farmers in the transition, as well as to refrain from giving tariff-free access to imports produced to standards that are illegal in Britain (because that undercuts British farmers unfairly).
We don't have any non-legislative way to achieve any of that beyond a bit of persuasion of individual farmers and consumers. The tool to achieve it is principally to draw public attention to unpleasant practices and encourage the Government to stop them, by asking supporters to write to MPs and ministers to say they'd like that. Writing a letter to the Government costs literally almost nothing, so "spending their resources" is an OTT way of putting it.
Do politicians have to weigh up the different priorities, taking public opinion into account? Absolutely. Is it worrying that charities use the money of supporters (we have zero state funding) to seek to draw attention to their areas of interest? Surely not. All this is the normal democratic process.
Fair points. Thanks. The charity sector is important and does lots of good. I think my post (which you have snipped) also raises real issues. In particular treating government as a sort of universal solvent and provider gets a bit dull.
1/6 of all rail journeys in the UK are now on Crossrail. What an incredible success.
In the week that Fuel Duty was frozen again, at a cumulative cost to the Treasury of £80 billion, it's a tragedy that funding has been diverted from HS2, bus services, Northern Powerhouse, cycle infrastructure etc etc
There is an enormous latent demand for public transport and active travel that is untapped across most of the country. Endless positive externalities.
And an interesting inequality angle. If you can afford to run a car in a city, you're really well off.
In rural parts of the country (like where I grew up), running a car is a major, but necessary, cost. A challenge for policy makers to get right.
I'd swap fuel duty for congestion charges, with lower rates for registered disabled etc.
I would simply be happy with buses not being cut.
Labour run Leicester wants to cut congestion, Con run Leics County wants to cut buses. It makes for little choice for people who live in the county. The most effective way to relieve congestion is probably the opposite, with better, regular county bus services, but that requires joined up thinking.
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.
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.
Big Charity needs turning upside-down. Donate to local small charities, rather than those who advertise on TV.
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.
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.
I think that's a bit unreasonable. Obviously I have an interest since I work for a big charity (we don't have shops so I can't comment on that aspect). Our objective is to raise standards of animal welfare on farms, by persuading the Government to legislate accordingly and to assist farmers in the transition, as well as to refrain from giving tariff-free access to imports produced to standards that are illegal in Britain (because that undercuts British farmers unfairly).
We don't have any non-legislative way to achieve any of that beyond a bit of persuasion of individual farmers and consumers. The tool to achieve it is principally to draw public attention to unpleasant practices and encourage the Government to stop them, by asking supporters to write to MPs and ministers to say they'd like that. Writing a letter to the Government costs literally almost nothing, so "spending their resources" is an OTT way of putting it.
Do politicians have to weigh up the different priorities, taking public opinion into account? Absolutely. Is it worrying that charities use the money of supporters (we have zero state funding) to seek to draw attention to their areas of interest? Surely not. All this is the normal democratic process.
You need to spend money to raise or receive money sometimes. A bit of cash on promotion or a fancy gala at which you bring in lots of donations, that sort of thing.
Nonetheless the professional charity sector does have some bad reports about it which have to be of concern, with high costs or utter dependence on government, unclear effectiveness or just vague 'raise awareness' goals which are of questionable benefit yet get a platform to lecture as they are a charity.
The awareness factor is important but one thing that particularly pisses me off is charity events where they hire a big name speaker or music star at a ridiculous cost for their appearance and the event then runs at a loss.
Yes they gain “awareness” as long as the story is in the papers and might attract a few new members or the odd extra donation but I am wary that the awareness trumps the cost and the funds that could go to the charity’s good deeds.
I always loved the Variety Club as in the past the “famous people” who attended events etc did so because they believed in the charity and wanted to help and did so for free.
I would love to see a culture where the charities commission make it a requirement to put on promotional literature for a ball or show if the guest is paid or not - like with social media where celebs are required to disclaim if they are being paid to promote something they post about.
It would be a good way of seeing who really believes in the charity and it’s aims or whether it’s just another gig - does someone like Beyoncé really need another half million for singing at an awards bash or should she be happy that her time has ensured that money goes to the cause, for a random example.
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.
I think that's a bit unreasonable. Obviously I have an interest since I work for a big charity (we don't have shops so I can't comment on that aspect). Our objective is to raise standards of animal welfare on farms, by persuading the Government to legislate accordingly and to assist farmers in the transition, as well as to refrain from giving tariff-free access to imports produced to standards that are illegal in Britain (because that undercuts British farmers unfairly).
We don't have any non-legislative way to achieve any of that beyond a bit of persuasion of individual farmers and consumers. The tool to achieve it is principally to draw public attention to unpleasant practices and encourage the Government to stop them, by asking supporters to write to MPs and ministers to say they'd like that. Writing a letter to the Government costs literally almost nothing, so "spending their resources" is an OTT way of putting it.
Do politicians have to weigh up the different priorities, taking public opinion into account? Absolutely. Is it worrying that charities use the money of supporters (we have zero state funding) to seek to draw attention to their areas of interest? Surely not. All this is the normal democratic process.
You work for a relatively small charity. The problem is with the massive international charities, that appear to spend much more money on their own administration than they do on the charitable activity.
Today's apparent deal with the health unions, if it sticks, will probably do the Tories more good than the budget. They really need to wind down the public sector strikes.
I suspect that when the nurses discover the consequences of the deal they won’t be happy. It’s something like a 8% hidden paycut with a one off payment that hides it
It is not a pay cut , they are getting more money than they get now. All this bollox of inflation etc, just crap you get paid what you get paid and cannot whine in 5 years that you have had a pay cut, it is a barefaced lie used by idiots. If they don't like it then they should go and get more money elsewhere.
Isn't there plenty of evidence that quite a lot of them are going- enough to make health service wobbly at best?
(In any case, the Times is reporting a 6% one-off bonus for the year ending soon and a 5% proper rise for the coming year. Have I misunderstood, because that looks like less money next year than this.)
No, that is correct. Fy 22-23 works out at about 13%, 23-24 as a -8% due to the non recurrent element of "bonus". It varies a bit with banding.
I forsee the FY 24-25 being quite fraught. I think the Unions will think the election year settlement will be better, if not there will be strikes again in the run up to the GE. They are probably right. The staff now have the taste for striking. The taboo is gone.
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.
The public expects police officers to be people who don’t do drugs and who don’t beat up their wives. Very black and white.
The public might expect that but wasn't police recruitment changed to make it easier for those who had "gone straight" after minor offences to join the police?
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.
I found it very harsh uncompromising such that , no only did I not want to.listen to it, I just had to switch off or onto something else. I suspect Sturgeon has done a lot of damage to the Party. A one party state is never a good thing as we have witnessed countless times in the UK whether it be at local, county or national level.
Understatement of the century and if the Murrells get their way and stuff Useless in then it will be destroyed completely. One wonders if she actually works for the British State given the destruction she has caused.
Today's apparent deal with the health unions, if it sticks, will probably do the Tories more good than the budget. They really need to wind down the public sector strikes.
I suspect that when the nurses discover the consequences of the deal they won’t be happy. It’s something like a 8% hidden paycut with a one off payment that hides it
It is not a pay cut , they are getting more money than they get now. All this bollox of inflation etc, just crap you get paid what you get paid and cannot whine in 5 years that you have had a pay cut, it is a barefaced lie used by idiots. If they don't like it then they should go and get more money elsewhere.
Isn't there plenty of evidence that quite a lot of them are going- enough to make health service wobbly at best?
(In any case, the Times is reporting a 6% one-off bonus for the year ending soon and a 5% proper rise for the coming year. Have I misunderstood, because that looks like less money next year than this.)
No, that is correct. Fy 22-23 works out at about 13%, 23-24 as a -8% due to the non recurrent element of "bonus". It varies a bit with banding.
I forsee the FY 24-25 being quite fraught. I think the Unions will think the election year settlement will be better, if not there will be strikes again in the run up to the GE. They are probably right. The staff now have the taste for striking. The taboo is gone.
Bloody hell.
It echoes the HS2 malarkey; squeeze into something now even though it will predictably make things worse in the foreseeable future.
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.
Big Charity needs turning upside-down. Donate to local small charities, rather than those who advertise on TV.
That’s what I prefer to do.
Big charities are effectively politically driven single issue lobbyists using the local and national media to recycle their press releases somewhat uncritically. Often more interested in managing problems.
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.
--snip--
I may be wrong, but I think an expired passport counts as valid ID.
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.
The public expects police officers to be people who don’t do drugs and who don’t beat up their wives. Very black and white.
The public might expect that but wasn't police recruitment changed to make it easier for those who had "gone straight" after minor offences to join the police?
That’s great, if we’re talking about someone who was done for shoplifting aged 16 or dangerous driving aged 17. We all grow up. But if you’re a drug dealer or a wife beater, these are things that affect your job directly.
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.
--snip--
I may be wrong, but I think an expired passport counts as valid ID.
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.
Except the LDs don't represent all classes now.
The average LD voter now is an AB, upper middle class graduate living in the South of England who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
Barely any working class voters vote LD now
There are quite a few LibDem counsellors in Sunderland city council!
For areas that are not predominantly working class though. Sunderland council covers not just Sunderland. It’s not all former pit villages and grinding poverty. Same with Durham where the council is run, badly, by a Lib Dem led coalition.
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.
It should be a black mark against anyone up for a job in public service to have been trained by Common Purpose. Then we might see some progress.
Common Purpose is like the Masonic thing. It’s a symptom, not the disease.
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.
I found it very harsh uncompromising such that , no only did I not want to.listen to it, I just had to switch off or onto something else. I suspect Sturgeon has done a lot of damage to the Party. A one party state is never a good thing as we have witnessed countless times in the UK whether it be at local, county or national level.
Understatement of the century and if the Murrells get their way and stuff Useless in then it will be destroyed completely. One wonders if she actually works for the British State given the destruction she has caused.
Good morning Malc
Lovely Spring morning here in Llandudno and I hope it is the same in Ayrshire
Has it been explained why Sturgeon felt she had to go so quickly?
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.
I found it very harsh uncompromising such that , no only did I not want to.listen to it, I just had to switch off or onto something else. I suspect Sturgeon has done a lot of damage to the Party. A one party state is never a good thing as we have witnessed countless times in the UK whether it be at local, county or national level.
Understatement of the century and if the Murrells get their way and stuff Useless in then it will be destroyed completely. One wonders if she actually works for the British State given the destruction she has caused.
Good morning Malc
Lovely Spring morning here in Llandudno and I hope it is the same in Ayrshire
Has it been explained why Sturgeon felt she had to go so quickly?
There has to be a reason and will it come out ?
@Big_G_NorthWales Nothing concrete, but there are so many things, place just falling about her, they have the 600K missing money that police are finally digging into, Salmond stitch that has to come out at some point , even with all the gagging orders plus all the other shambles of failed policies and biggest one was she had run out of excuses for not having referendum. Murrells have made a fortune by running SNP and government, bit like old communist dictators. they are now desperate to get Humza in to try and keep the lid on teh scandals. You cannot name anyone without being jailed but well known that all the complainants against Salmond were close government allies of Sturgeon or high ranking SNP people.
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.
I found it very harsh uncompromising such that , no only did I not want to.listen to it, I just had to switch off or onto something else. I suspect Sturgeon has done a lot of damage to the Party. A one party state is never a good thing as we have witnessed countless times in the UK whether it be at local, county or national level.
Your political logic is based on a dislike of the West Central Belt accent?
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
Yes. And quite a few charities that devote resources to denounce government are themselves massively funded by that same government (ie us).
A lot of big charities have become businesses really, with top salaries to match.
(I support a small charity operating in east Africa. When trustees go from the uk to visit the project they pay their own way 100%).
Many Conservatives argue that Government should be more like business. Do they believe that charity should also be more business-like?
Comments
We don't have any non-legislative way to achieve any of that beyond a bit of persuasion of individual farmers and consumers. The tool to achieve it is principally to draw public attention to unpleasant practices and encourage the Government to stop them, by asking supporters to write to MPs and ministers to say they'd like that. Writing a letter to the Government costs literally almost nothing, so "spending their resources" is an OTT way of putting it.
Do politicians have to weigh up the different priorities, taking public opinion into account? Absolutely. Is it worrying that charities use the money of supporters (we have zero state funding) to seek to draw attention to their areas of interest? Surely not. All this is the normal democratic process.
The average LD voter now is an AB, upper middle class graduate living in the South of England who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
Barely any working class voters vote LD now
A lot of big charities have become businesses really, with top salaries to match.
(I support a small charity operating in east Africa. When trustees go from the uk to visit the project they pay their own way 100%).
They are impotent & toothless. They are wheeled out for R4 interviews or a much-loved chat show performance or a speaking tour.
But, they are down on the floor with the rest of us, and we secretly feel a little embarrassed for them
In the week that Fuel Duty was frozen again, at a cumulative cost to the Treasury of £80 billion, it's a tragedy that funding has been diverted from HS2, bus services, Northern Powerhouse, cycle infrastructure etc etc
There is an enormous latent demand for public transport and active travel that is untapped across most of the country. Endless positive externalities.
The LDs will, in working class estimation, neither help them by being in power, nor help them by being an agent of the change they want. Rational choice theory applies.
If you look at history since the working class had a vote the conclusion will be they have been remarkably effective at using it. Which is why some train drivers and plumbers are paid more than some doctors and lawyers.
Although it is still the Cons and they do need to be taught a lesson at not being shit these past few years, nevertheless there is a new approach.
Inflation is subsiding, the strikes are being settled, it seems that the people in charge aren't lunatics...
All this as you say could mean much less of a shellacking than otherwise might have been the case.
For example England is weak in defensive* midfielders, but one of the ones chosen in this squad (Phillips) has not played a League game all season for Man City. Southgate is looking at the Championship to try to find a good DM.
While the majority of the squad play for top 6 clubs, the names pick themselves, not because of their ability, but from the paucity of other choices.
Nonetheless the professional charity sector does have some bad reports about it which have to be of concern, with high costs or utter dependence on government, unclear effectiveness or just vague 'raise awareness' goals which are of questionable benefit yet get a platform to lecture as they are a charity.
Depending on where Labour lose votes, it might make the Conservative plight even worse.
In rural parts of the country (like where I grew up), running a car is a major, but necessary, cost. A challenge for policy makers to get right.
I'd swap fuel duty for congestion charges, with lower rates for registered disabled etc.
(In any case, the Times is reporting a 6% one-off bonus for the year ending soon and a 5% proper rise for the coming year. Have I misunderstood, because that looks like less money next year than this.)
Obviously not completely uniform support, but actually the minority of us LD supporters is pretty evenly spread. It is a problem with FPTP for us.
Labour run Leicester wants to cut congestion, Con run Leics County wants to cut buses. It makes for little choice for people who live in the county. The most effective way to relieve congestion is probably the opposite, with better, regular county bus services, but that requires joined up thinking.
Yes they gain “awareness” as long as the story is in the papers and might attract a few new members or the odd extra donation but I am wary that the awareness trumps the cost and the funds that could go to the charity’s good deeds.
I always loved the Variety Club as in the past the “famous people” who attended events etc did so because they believed in the charity and wanted to help and did so for free.
I would love to see a culture where the charities commission make it a requirement to put on promotional literature for a ball or show if the guest is paid or not - like with social media where celebs are required to disclaim if they are being paid to promote something they post about.
It would be a good way of seeing who really believes in the charity and it’s aims or whether it’s just another gig - does someone like Beyoncé really need another half million for singing at an awards bash or should she be happy that her time has ensured that money goes to the cause, for a random example.
I forsee the FY 24-25 being quite fraught. I think the Unions will think the election year settlement will be better, if not there will be strikes again in the run up to the GE. They are probably right. The staff now have the taste for striking. The taboo is gone.
It echoes the HS2 malarkey; squeeze into something now even though it will predictably make things worse in the foreseeable future.
The pre-election tax cuts had better be worth it.
Big charities are effectively politically driven single issue lobbyists using the local and national media to recycle their press releases somewhat uncritically. Often more interested in managing problems.
Lovely Spring morning here in Llandudno and I hope it is the same in Ayrshire
Has it been explained why Sturgeon felt she had to go so quickly?
There has to be a reason and will it come out ?
Nothing concrete, but there are so many things, place just falling about her, they have the 600K missing money that police are finally digging into, Salmond stitch that has to come out at some point , even with all the gagging orders plus all the other shambles of failed policies and biggest one was she had run out of excuses for not having referendum. Murrells have made a fortune by running SNP and government, bit like old communist dictators. they are now desperate to get Humza in to try and keep the lid on teh scandals. You cannot name anyone without being jailed but well known that all the complainants against Salmond were close government allies of Sturgeon or high ranking SNP people.