Now that the heat has gone from the situation, I'm genuinely impressed that the CMA actually took action on the MS buyout of Activision. My expectations were very low but their reasoning makes a lot of sense and the remedies offered by MS are a joke, 10 year deals that tie competitors into using MS infrastructure and hand 100% of in game revenue to them was a complete non-starter and good on the CMA for seeing through them.
My sense of it is that MS will appeal and the appeal will be rejected. That will take them beyond July 18th at which point the exit fee rises from $1bn to $3bn. If I was advising MS, I'd say bail out now, pay the $1bn and clean house at Xbox.
What I'm really struggling to understand is how MS didn't see this coming. They really do seem completely unprepared to be told no by a regulator that was named by ABK as one of the four that must approve the deal for it to go ahead. Going in at 70% market share and then proposing to buy a player that will propel them to near 80% share directly and almost 90% indirectly was always going to be a big ask. If the EC doesn't come to an identical conclusion I'd be shocked simply because the maths is so obvious.
In general the number 6 market player buying the number 3 market player was inevitably going to face resistance at some level and the way that MS decided to downplay the console and PC side of things and play up the move being for cloud and mobile has hugely backfired on them. In cloud it is the number 1 player buying the number 3 player and no significant remedies were offered to prevent entrenching their cloud position as the monopoly player.
As for people suggesting it means the UK is closed for business, I'd say it's quite the opposite, it signals that the UK is open for business and small competitors won't be muscled out by monopoly players. If anything this will significantly help attract smaller and medium sized tech companies to the UK as a place to grow. What we need is for listing rules to support these companies in attracting institutional investment so they don't need to go to the US for their IPO.
Labour Black Socialists @labourblacksoc1 · 4h LBS calls on the Labour Party to: · Lift Diane Abbott’s suspension and restore the whip. · Fully acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy of racism within the Party and take immediate steps to implement the recommendations of the Forde report.
Doesn't this allegedly imply Starmer is a racist?
That is BJO's point. According to BJO, Starmer is a racist and Corbyn isn't. His argument is absurd.
On the subject of dementia, I read recently that untreated hearing problems can be a contributing factor in cognitive decline, which makes sense because people tend to fill in the blanks and retreat into their own world.
- The risk of getting dementia almost doubles if you have an untreated mild hearing loss - With a moderate hearing loss, the risk of dementia triples - With a severe untreated hearing loss you are five times more likely to develop dementia
Now that the heat has gone from the situation, I'm genuinely impressed that the CMA actually took action on the MS buyout of Activision. My expectations were very low but their reasoning makes a lot of sense and the remedies offered by MS are a joke, 10 year deals that tie competitors into using MS infrastructure and hand 100% of in game revenue to them was a complete non-starter and good on the CMA for seeing through them.
My sense of it is that MS will appeal and the appeal will be rejected. That will take them beyond July 18th at which point the exit fee rises from $1bn to $3bn. If I was advising MS, I'd say bail out now, pay the $1bn and clean house at Xbox.
What I'm really struggling to understand is how MS didn't see this coming. They really do seem completely unprepared to be told no by a regulator that was named by ABK as one of the four that must approve the deal for it to go ahead. Going in at 70% market share and then proposing to buy a player that will propel them to near 80% share directly and almost 90% indirectly was always going to be a big ask. If the EC doesn't come to an identical conclusion I'd be shocked simply because the maths is so obvious.
In general the number 6 market player buying the number 3 market player was inevitably going to face resistance at some level and the way that MS decided to downplay the console and PC side of things and play up the move being for cloud and mobile has hugely backfired on them. In cloud it is the number 1 player buying the number 3 player and no significant remedies were offered to prevent entrenching their cloud position as the monopoly player.
As for people suggesting it means the UK is closed for business, I'd say it's quite the opposite, it signals that the UK is open for business and small competitors won't be muscled out by monopoly players. If anything this will significantly help attract smaller and medium sized tech companies to the UK as a place to grow. What we need is for listing rules to support these companies in attracting institutional investment so they don't need to go to the US for their IPO.
Agree entirely about the decision, but I was a little less clear about the implications for the UK, should the EU decide differently, which isn’t impossible.
Now that the heat has gone from the situation, I'm genuinely impressed that the CMA actually took action on the MS buyout of Activision. My expectations were very low but their reasoning makes a lot of sense and the remedies offered by MS are a joke, 10 year deals that tie competitors into using MS infrastructure and hand 100% of in game revenue to them was a complete non-starter and good on the CMA for seeing through them.
My sense of it is that MS will appeal and the appeal will be rejected. That will take them beyond July 18th at which point the exit fee rises from $1bn to $3bn. If I was advising MS, I'd say bail out now, pay the $1bn and clean house at Xbox.
What I'm really struggling to understand is how MS didn't see this coming. They really do seem completely unprepared to be told no by a regulator that was named by ABK as one of the four that must approve the deal for it to go ahead. Going in at 70% market share and then proposing to buy a player that will propel them to near 80% share directly and almost 90% indirectly was always going to be a big ask. If the EC doesn't come to an identical conclusion I'd be shocked simply because the maths is so obvious.
In general the number 6 market player buying the number 3 market player was inevitably going to face resistance at some level and the way that MS decided to downplay the console and PC side of things and play up the move being for cloud and mobile has hugely backfired on them. In cloud it is the number 1 player buying the number 3 player and no significant remedies were offered to prevent entrenching their cloud position as the monopoly player.
As for people suggesting it means the UK is closed for business, I'd say it's quite the opposite, it signals that the UK is open for business and small competitors won't be muscled out by monopoly players. If anything this will significantly help attract smaller and medium sized tech companies to the UK as a place to grow. What we need is for listing rules to support these companies in attracting institutional investment so they don't need to go to the US for their IPO.
Agree entirely about the decision, but I was a little less clear about the implications for the UK, should the EU decide differently, which isn’t impossible.
No, the deal simply doesn't go ahead. ABK named the CMA as a regulator that must approve the deal for it to go ahead. The CMA tends to be named in all deals as standard because it's a gold standard regulator for competition and works very closely with the FTC, plus the UK is a huge market, for a lot fo these companies it's a bigger market than the EU now that we're not in it.
I don't believe anyone here was deliberately winding me up, the simple fact is you don't really comprehend what coping with a loved one with dementia is like until you actually experience it. I know I didn't
I think my comments earlier would endorse your position
It is a terrible time to witness a dear family member deteriorating with dementia and in my father in laws case we could not talk about it for 2 years after he died
Absolutely, and every sympathy for Pagan and his father. The only thing I'd say which may help some is that not every dementia case is as bad as that. My father had it for a number of years before he died, and it took the form of sometimes total forgetfulness. He couldn't go out alone for fear of not finding his way home. He would forget simple things - my job, where we were living etc. But it never took an aggressive or disruptive form; my mother and I looked after him and he said he'd never been happier. Don't despair if you get it.
My mum has just been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. She's 87. We're hoping it will be manageable at home - but my dad is 89 so that might not be possible for very long. Let's see though. Probably best to keep the planning short term and not look too far ahead.
My Grandmother nursed my Grandfather from Alzeimers diagnosis almost to death, from age 85 to 95. He was in a nursing home only for about a month before death. In retrospect, we should have carted him off to the nursing home earlier, to spare her, but of course she wouldn't hear of it.
The only advice I would give is that sometimes you have to be cold and dispassionate. The day we took his car keys away required a significant dose of "cruel to be kind" to get through.
BBC says support for the monarchy amongst young people has dropped from 64% in 2016 to 32% today.
Cohort effect and arguably bad reporting. The people who were in the category of "young people" in 2016 are not necessarily in that category now. The people who were in the category of "young people" today were in the "child" category in 2016. They aren't the same people.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
That’s only since our politics became infected with populism under New Labour. The previous government allowed prices to correct.
The notion of a house as a way to accrue wealth rather than something to live in took off in the Thatcher era.
Wasnt it said Thatcher wanted a country where men like her father could prosper but instead created one where men like her son prospered.
Yet her council house sales enabled millions to own a home and property for the first time whose families had never been able to do so before
Labour Black Socialists @labourblacksoc1 · 4h LBS calls on the Labour Party to: · Lift Diane Abbott’s suspension and restore the whip. · Fully acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy of racism within the Party and take immediate steps to implement the recommendations of the Forde report.
So you support having an anti-Semite back in the Labour Party.
Just met some American friends who have returned from a trip to Britain, the first in a long while.
Apparently the country is now “notably shabby”, and “falling to bits”, and “beer prices now rival New York”.
I disagree with their assessment. Britain is less shabby than it's been for a long time, especially in London, with the Elizabeth Line, etc.
Round here, the roads are in shite order (pot holes like bomb craters!) footpaths and verges are overgrown and fly tipping is out of control. I drove down the A46 last week from my village to the M1 and was appalled at how the embankments were festooned with litter, packaging, takeaway cartons and bits of car. Chaz should just have a quiet knees up with his family and bung my local council some cash to pay for a clean up!
TFS, they need to start making litter louts and criminals wear orange suits and prowl the highways of the UK picking up litter as a punishment
I'd vote for any party that advocated the death penalty for fly tippers. I genuinely hate people who do that, and I don't like to hate anyone.
They are positively encouraged in Gloucestershire.
If you want to take rubbish to your local Council dump you have to make an appointment.
Was genuinely amazed when I found out this was required at the municipal tip in Edinburgh, when we were chucking stuff out before leaving the country.
Britain, a country where the local council employs a man to check that cars entering the tip have an appointment for doing so. Because that needs doing.
We started having to make appointments at the tip during the pandemic, to keep people apart, and the council clearly liked it so much they’ve kept it going, along with the man sitting there ticking off the registration numbers. To be fair, booking is quite easy and you then sail in and out of a fairly empty tip, compared to the scrum and sometimes queues of cars to get in that were a regular feature before.
But there must be a lot of stuff that used to come to the tip that is now going somewhere else….
The general rule is that if something started during the pandemic it's usually something that's made life more difficult for ordinary people and easier for the authorities.
The local council (very Labour) adores the appointment system. Everything (including recycling) is an appointment booked online.
The fact that most of the booking systems are broken is not important, since there are no phone lines answered. So no complaints can
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
That’s only since our politics became infected with populism under New Labour. The previous government allowed prices to correct.
The notion of a house as a way to accrue wealth rather than something to live in took off in the Thatcher era.
Wasnt it said Thatcher wanted a country where men like her father could prosper but instead created one where men like her son prospered.
Yet her council house sales enabled millions to own a home and property for the first time whose families had never been able to do so before
The housing market still went up and down. It wasn’t a one way bet
I bought my first flat for the same number of pounds in 1996 that it sold for when first built in 1988. So a decade of price increases had vanished.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
Just met some American friends who have returned from a trip to Britain, the first in a long while.
Apparently the country is now “notably shabby”, and “falling to bits”, and “beer prices now rival New York”.
I disagree with their assessment. Britain is less shabby than it's been for a long time, especially in London, with the Elizabeth Line, etc.
Round here, the roads are in shite order (pot holes like bomb craters!) footpaths and verges are overgrown and fly tipping is out of control. I drove down the A46 last week from my village to the M1 and was appalled at how the embankments were festooned with litter, packaging, takeaway cartons and bits of car. Chaz should just have a quiet knees up with his family and bung my local council some cash to pay for a clean up!
TFS, they need to start making litter louts and criminals wear orange suits and prowl the highways of the UK picking up litter as a punishment
I'd vote for any party that advocated the death penalty for fly tippers. I genuinely hate people who do that, and I don't like to hate anyone.
They are positively encouraged in Gloucestershire.
If you want to take rubbish to your local Council dump you have to make an appointment.
Was genuinely amazed when I found out this was required at the municipal tip in Edinburgh, when we were chucking stuff out before leaving the country.
Britain, a country where the local council employs a man to check that cars entering the tip have an appointment for doing so. Because that needs doing.
We started having to make appointments at the tip during the pandemic, to keep people apart, and the council clearly liked it so much they’ve kept it going, along with the man sitting there ticking off the registration numbers. To be fair, booking is quite easy and you then sail in and out of a fairly empty tip, compared to the scrum and sometimes queues of cars to get in that were a regular feature before.
But there must be a lot of stuff that used to come to the tip that is now going somewhere else….
The general rule is that if something started during the pandemic it's usually something that's made life more difficult for ordinary people and easier for the authorities.
The local council (very Labour) adores the appointment system. Everything (including recycling) is an appointment booked online.
The fact that most of the booking systems are broken is not important, since there are no phone lines answered. So no complaints can
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
That’s only since our politics became infected with populism under New Labour. The previous government allowed prices to correct.
The notion of a house as a way to accrue wealth rather than something to live in took off in the Thatcher era.
Wasnt it said Thatcher wanted a country where men like her father could prosper but instead created one where men like her son prospered.
Yet her council house sales enabled millions to own a home and property for the first time whose families had never been able to do so before
The housing market still went up and down. It wasn’t a one way bet
I bought my first flat for the same number of pounds in 1996 that it sold for when first built in 1988. So a decade of price increases had vanished.
Imagine that.
It was accepted. Stuff happens.
Imagine that.
I bought in 2010 for £96500 and sold for £101500.
Regional HPI indicates the average prices for Yorks and Humber were 141093 and 154121 for those quarters.
The big house price growth in the 2010s was a bit of a London / London commutable phenomenon I think. The 2000s (decade) house price growth was more general.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
"Evil" is such a nebulous notion. If you are correct and Starmer was empowering a weapons-grade anti-Semite he could be covered by the term.
Starmer could argue he was fighting Corbyn and Corbynism from the inside, and having taken the opportunity has cleansed his party of a significant percentage of Momentum's mind-filth. So Starmer stayed, let's take Chuka Umuna, Labour's last Leader in waiting. How did leaving the party on principle work out for him? What has been his role in clearing out the Augean Stables?
Hal-an-tow, jolly rumbelow We were up long before the day-o To welcome in the summertime To welcome in the May-o For summer is coming in And winter's gone away
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
"Evil" is such a nebulous notion. If you are correct and Starmer was empowering a weapons-grade anti-Semite he could be covered by the term.
Starmer could argue he was fighting Corbyn and Corbynism from the inside, and having taken the opportunity has cleansed his party of a significant percentage of Momentum's mind-filth. So Starmer stayed ...
He is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler.
Labour Black Socialists @labourblacksoc1 · 4h LBS calls on the Labour Party to: · Lift Diane Abbott’s suspension and restore the whip. · Fully acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy of racism within the Party and take immediate steps to implement the recommendations of the Forde report.
I think the suspension should be lifted if she's provided them with the final draft of her letter. Her apology was that it was an earlier draft, and if that was sincere her final version was not offensive and they can and should wrap up the investigation and let her back. If the final draft is no better then her apology was not sincere and they'd have grounds to be cross.
I don't think that's sensible, or sets a good precedent.
It would allow any MP to say something absolutely outrageous, and then produce an alleged 'final version' that scraped through within the rules.
She wrote that letter, and sent it in twice. Added to previous comments she has made, it's clear that her attitude to racism is somewhat different to the one I understand, and one I certainly don't agree with.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
"Evil" is such a nebulous notion. If you are correct and Starmer was empowering a weapons-grade anti-Semite he could be covered by the term.
Starmer could argue he was fighting Corbyn and Corbynism from the inside, and having taken the opportunity has cleansed his party of a significant percentage of Momentum's mind-filth. So Starmer stayed ...
He is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler.
Hal-an-tow, jolly rumbelow We were up long before the day-o To welcome in the summertime To welcome in the May-o For summer is coming in And winter's gone away
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sometimes I wonder if the move to having two income families is benefiting society.
Mostly the extra income seems to be just to pay insane house prices rather than actually making anyone richer.
This isn't a 'women should be at home' thing - at least two of my friends are the other way round and that suits them fine - but it seems mad to pay other people to do all the things that used to be done within a family.
Sometimes there is no choice, but should it always be the first choice?
That’s heresy.
There is another heresy. That all women want to work. If you actually listen to women -
1) sone want to look after their children, full time, until 18 2) some until primary school starts 3) some until secondary 4) etc
The “real women have a career” thing is just as stupid as “real women wash dishes” garbage.
Same, increasingly for men.
The idea that both parents *must* work is a curiously “progressive” ideal. Despite the fact that much of social infrastructure isn’t setup for parking the children with someone else 8am-7pm
It is also driven by the need for economic growth.
Having a spouse doing unpaid work at home vs having a spouse working and barely covering childcare costs, the latter creates at least two more economically productive units of GDP even if the net result is the same child cared for.
Point to think about. If women left the labour force to look after their kids the housing crisis would be solved. No more 2 income mortgages and house prices would crash. Not only that but without childcare costs families would need less money anyway. A win win.
As an aside, if you plot female labour force participation vs happiness indexes, there's a (very) statistically significant positive correlation.
Countries where women work are typically much, much happier than those where they do not.
So why are about 9 million women in the uk on antidepressants. You have confused correlation with causation as countries where women work were wealthier to start with.
Amazing.
We had another poster a week or so ago who also was obsessed with Western use of antidepressants.
Would you like to tell me if antidepressant use is more common among (a) those in work, and (b) those not in work.
I see Sunak is, according to the Times, eyeing more “Help to Buy”. Muppet.
No, it's completely logical. The entire point of the original Osborne scheme was to hyperinflate the asset wealth of the Tory core vote, whilst maintaining the pretence that the Government gave a flying fuck about the aspirations of the young. It's entirely consistent with modern Conservative values and policy.
Hang on, we were told this would all blow up in Starmer's face as it would expose him for the nasty person he is.
The cabinet secretary has been accused of having a vendetta against Sue Gray, who investigated lockdown parties in Downing Street, after pushing for her to be banned from taking a job with the Labour Party for at least a year.
Senior Whitehall sources have said that Simon Case was “instrumental” in a recommendation that Gray should be barred from taking up a role as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff until next March at the earliest.
The move has caused disquiet in Whitehall amid concerns that it could set a “dangerous precedent” and is “out of kilter” with previous periods of gardening leave imposed on former civil servants. One source claimed that Case’s hard line was “personal”, while another said he was pursuing a “vindictive” agenda against Gray after she strongly criticised the civil service leadership over the Downing Street parties...
One Whitehall source said Case had been instrumental in recommending a ban of at least a year — arguing that Gray had undermined key civil service principles of honesty and impartiality. “He always disliked her and it feels very personal,” they said. “The idea of a long ban is very much being driven by him.”
Another source said: “It is clearly vindictive as there is simply no precedent for it. Senior civil servants have gone to work for political parties in the past without any special conditions. It is very hard to see how it can be justified.”
One senior Tory also expressed concern that it could lead to a precedent that would backfire on the party, saying: “She really wasn’t central in Whitehall. She was the second permanent secretary in the Levelling Up Department.
“When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
I see Sunak is, according to the Times, eyeing more “Help to Buy”. Muppet.
No, it's completely logical. The entire point of the original Osborne scheme was to hyperinflate the asset wealth of the Tory core vote, whilst maintaining the pretence that the Government gave a flying fuck about the aspirations of the young. It's entirely consistent with modern Conservative values and policy.
Of course if Labour did it you would support it as helping the young... your hyperbole speaks volumes.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
"Evil" is such a nebulous notion. If you are correct and Starmer was empowering a weapons-grade anti-Semite he could be covered by the term.
Starmer could argue he was fighting Corbyn and Corbynism from the inside, and having taken the opportunity has cleansed his party of a significant percentage of Momentum's mind-filth. So Starmer stayed ...
He is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler.
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
Serious question. Are you a Hindiphobe? Do you REALLY believe he is sleazier than Boris Johnson?
No, I am not a Hindiphobe (sic).
Fair enough but I argued with you relentlessly about David (Black Rock) Cameron, George (Deripaska) Osborne, Nick (Facebook) Clegg and Danny (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) Alexander. Perhaps you will correct me but I don't remember you deigning to criticise any of them.
I have. But show me when they were in power their wives got money from the government for their business interests?
Their wives probably weren't billionaires? I yield to no one in my loathing of Tory corruption but this is a bit weak to be honest.
She probably has a million and one business interests/connections - and seems implausible to me the PM gets involves in minor funding decisions made by an non department public body.
She's a billionaire, so why has she gone begging to the government
She may not even be aware she owns shares in the company, she's a billionaire... she probably has investments indirectly in hundreds if not thousands of startups.
She’s a billionaire: maybe she can afford to pay someone to go through the paperwork.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
All Labour leaders get demonised by Tories , ‘‘twas ever thus.
Hang on, we were told this would all blow up in Starmer's face as it would expose him for the nasty person he is.
The cabinet secretary has been accused of having a vendetta against Sue Gray, who investigated lockdown parties in Downing Street, after pushing for her to be banned from taking a job with the Labour Party for at least a year.
Senior Whitehall sources have said that Simon Case was “instrumental” in a recommendation that Gray should be barred from taking up a role as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff until next March at the earliest.
The move has caused disquiet in Whitehall amid concerns that it could set a “dangerous precedent” and is “out of kilter” with previous periods of gardening leave imposed on former civil servants. One source claimed that Case’s hard line was “personal”, while another said he was pursuing a “vindictive” agenda against Gray after she strongly criticised the civil service leadership over the Downing Street parties...
One Whitehall source said Case had been instrumental in recommending a ban of at least a year — arguing that Gray had undermined key civil service principles of honesty and impartiality. “He always disliked her and it feels very personal,” they said. “The idea of a long ban is very much being driven by him.”
Another source said: “It is clearly vindictive as there is simply no precedent for it. Senior civil servants have gone to work for political parties in the past without any special conditions. It is very hard to see how it can be justified.”
One senior Tory also expressed concern that it could lead to a precedent that would backfire on the party, saying: “She really wasn’t central in Whitehall. She was the second permanent secretary in the Levelling Up Department.
“When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
Serious question. Are you a Hindiphobe? Do you REALLY believe he is sleazier than Boris Johnson?
No, I am not a Hindiphobe (sic).
Fair enough but I argued with you relentlessly about David (Black Rock) Cameron, George (Deripaska) Osborne, Nick (Facebook) Clegg and Danny (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) Alexander. Perhaps you will correct me but I don't remember you deigning to criticise any of them.
I have. But show me when they were in power their wives got money from the government for their business interests?
Their wives probably weren't billionaires? I yield to no one in my loathing of Tory corruption but this is a bit weak to be honest.
She probably has a million and one business interests/connections - and seems implausible to me the PM gets involves in minor funding decisions made by an non department public body.
She's a billionaire, so why has she gone begging to the government
She may not even be aware she owns shares in the company, she's a billionaire... she probably has investments indirectly in hundreds if not thousands of startups.
She’s a billionaire: maybe she can afford to pay someone to go through the paperwork.
(Snip) “When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
Had Ed Llewellyn just been in charge of an investigation into the leader of another party? Because that's where a massive issue lies.
And relevantly, Labour have form for this: in the way that Shami Chakrabarti came up with 'interesting' conclusions in her inquiry into anti-Semitism within Labour, essentially clearing the party, and then immediately got elevated to the Lords. Only for it to be shown that the party did indeed have significant issues with anti-Semitism.
So yes, perhaps there should be a delay before senior civil servants leave to work for political parties. (And I'd say the same for them going to work for large organisations that they might have had power over as well.)
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
The problem is that all of this was visible before he became PM. Yet the Conservative Party ignored these flaws and chose him to be leader - because they were so far up their own backsides over Brexit.
I heartily laugh at all the people who supported Boris for PM, and now disown him - as if they had not ignored his massive flaws in the first place...
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
How do very high house prices help anybody, except those downsizing.
(Snip) “When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
Had Ed Llewellyn just been in charge of an investigation into the leader of another party? Because that's where a massive issue lies.
And relevantly, Labour have form for this: in the way that Shami Chakrabarti came up with 'interesting' conclusions in her inquiry into anti-Semitism within Labour, essentially clearing the party, and then immediately got elevated to the Lords. Only for it to be shown that the party did indeed have significant issues with anti-Semitism.
So yes, perhaps there should be a delay before senior civil servants leave to work for political parties. (And I'd say the same for them going to work for large organisations that they might have had power over as well.)
It occurs to me though that the reason Gray had to investigate is because Case - whose job it should have been - was accused of criminal behaviour himself.
Had he been any actual good, this would have been avoided.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
How do very high house prices help anybody, except those downsizing.
Following the Vappu (MayDay) celebrations in Helsinki, huge turnout, white student hats and lusty singing. The crowd greeted the announcement that there are plentiful extra toilet facilities in Tehtaankatu (location of the Russian embassy) with enthusiastic cheers.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
How do very high house prices help anybody, except those downsizing.
It helps governments pretend that their people are richer than they really are.
The BoE guy unfortunately is right. We have to recognise that we are a poorer country, used to living beyond our means, which isn't a great election winning message for either party. Particularly not one of government.
(Snip) “When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
Had Ed Llewellyn just been in charge of an investigation into the leader of another party? Because that's where a massive issue lies.
And relevantly, Labour have form for this: in the way that Shami Chakrabarti came up with 'interesting' conclusions in her inquiry into anti-Semitism within Labour, essentially clearing the party, and then immediately got elevated to the Lords. Only for it to be shown that the party did indeed have significant issues with anti-Semitism.
So yes, perhaps there should be a delay before senior civil servants leave to work for political parties. (And I'd say the same for them going to work for large organisations that they might have had power over as well.)
The Gray Report should have no bearing whatsoever on her move to Team Starmer.
You are repeating Johnson's ludicrous defence that because she has taken an appointment with Labour her report must have been partisan and unfair to Johnson and Case. Gray has merely assimilated the evidence, which speaks for itself, and reported the facts. Case sent the invites and Johnson consumed the DoomBar in a manner which was wholly at odds with the guidance. Gray may have antagonised Case and Johnson for not pulling her punches, but she was tasked with laying out the facts, which she did.
It would appear Gray was subsequently isolated for banging Case to rights. She should seek advise from a top Lawyer and sue for constructive dismissal.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
(Snip) “When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
Had Ed Llewellyn just been in charge of an investigation into the leader of another party? Because that's where a massive issue lies.
And relevantly, Labour have form for this: in the way that Shami Chakrabarti came up with 'interesting' conclusions in her inquiry into anti-Semitism within Labour, essentially clearing the party, and then immediately got elevated to the Lords. Only for it to be shown that the party did indeed have significant issues with anti-Semitism.
So yes, perhaps there should be a delay before senior civil servants leave to work for political parties. (And I'd say the same for them going to work for large organisations that they might have had power over as well.)
It occurs to me though that the reason Gray had to investigate is because Case - whose job it should have been - was accused of criminal behaviour himself.
Had he been any actual good, this would have been avoided.
It is quite remarkable that Case remains in his post simply as a result of his party invite email. As a vindictive incompetent he does seem to have the perfect CV to work with this malign administration.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
I see Sunak is, according to the Times, eyeing more “Help to Buy”. Muppet.
No, it's completely logical. The entire point of the original Osborne scheme was to hyperinflate the asset wealth of the Tory core vote, whilst maintaining the pretence that the Government gave a flying fuck about the aspirations of the young. It's entirely consistent with modern Conservative values and policy.
Of course if Labour did it you would support it as helping the young... your hyperbole speaks volumes.
I would bloody well not. And the likelihood is that they are going to find some similar way to rig the market, because they are as frightened of the enormous grey vote as the Tories are - and would dearly love to peel some of them off.
Where you get this idea that I'm a Labour supporter from I don't know. I've been saying for a long time that the main reason why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country is because the politicians are all so very alike, and the differences between them are slight and superficial. Labour's offer come the next election is almost certainly going to be that it will manage decline better than the Tories, dressed up with a few extra windmills to make them appear modern and forward-looking.
Note, if you will, their risible council tax pledge for the local elections. If only there were a Labour Government, your council tax would not go up. Rejoice! Of course, there's no suggestion that local government needs a trainload more cash if it is going to fund anything other than social care. There's no suggestion that a system of local taxation that's based on property values in 1991, and mandates that the owner of a palace should pay no more than three times the charge levied on a studio flat, might need replacing with something better. No. It's all "we will freeze your council tax and get nasty oil companies to pay for it." Such a policy would provide a tiny amount of light relief to households at the expense of unpopular corporations (I'd have saved about £80 for this year on my Band B flat if my council tax hadn't gone up,) whilst doing absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problems in the system. It's facile, empty populism.
What Labour makes up for in not being quite so far up the fundaments of the wealthy as the Conservatives, it loses again in hypocrisy. If it cared at all about the miserable incomes of the poor it would tax the assets of the rich - and that means the property and investments of well-to-do middle-class people, and not just the profits of huge corporations. It would end the blanket triple lock for all pensioners and reserve generous hikes in social security for people who are actually struggling. It would construct a case for meaningful redistribution. What we're actually going to get out of them is tokenism and handwringing. And believe me, I'll be delighted to be proven wrong if they actually come out with a social democratic manifesto next year, rather than conservatism with a thin veneer of greenwash, and I shall repent of my cynicism should the latter indeed come to pass. But I'm not holding my breath.
(Snip) “When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
Had Ed Llewellyn just been in charge of an investigation into the leader of another party? Because that's where a massive issue lies.
And relevantly, Labour have form for this: in the way that Shami Chakrabarti came up with 'interesting' conclusions in her inquiry into anti-Semitism within Labour, essentially clearing the party, and then immediately got elevated to the Lords. Only for it to be shown that the party did indeed have significant issues with anti-Semitism.
So yes, perhaps there should be a delay before senior civil servants leave to work for political parties. (And I'd say the same for them going to work for large organisations that they might have had power over as well.)
It occurs to me though that the reason Gray had to investigate is because Case - whose job it should have been - was accused of criminal behaviour himself.
Had he been any actual good, this would have been avoided.
It is quite remarkable that Case remains in his post simply as a result of his party invite email. As a vindictive incompetent he does seem to have the perfect CV to work with this malign administration.
Case gives the impression he would be a perfect academic historian at a university with more reputation than quality - say, Oxford. He's lazy, thin skinned, inefficient, administratively incapable, arrogant, fond of a good party and networks very effectively.
But while his networking may have got him to the top, it hasn't exactly been good for the civil service. On his watch its reputation has been absolutely trashed.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Labour Black Socialists @labourblacksoc1 · 4h LBS calls on the Labour Party to: · Lift Diane Abbott’s suspension and restore the whip. · Fully acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy of racism within the Party and take immediate steps to implement the recommendations of the Forde report.
I think the suspension should be lifted if she's provided them with the final draft of her letter. Her apology was that it was an earlier draft, and if that was sincere her final version was not offensive and they can and should wrap up the investigation and let her back. If the final draft is no better then her apology was not sincere and they'd have grounds to be cross.
The problem is that the final draft was on a computer she left in a camper van in Scotland. She went back and it’s gone….
She asked the lady who lent her the camper van to study in, but that lady denies even knowing her. Or that Scotland exists….
Whenever I am writing a letter I always make sure that the first draft says the complete opposite of what I intend to say.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
Wilson was quite sly but I don't remember him as being completely satanic. Scanning through last night's posts I think PB banged Starmer to rights, to the point where you could have written; Starmer is no Blair, but he might be Beelzebub.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Except that the politics are such that he could probably get an audience for a wider programme of radical change, given that both the current government and the current economic and fiscal settlement are so discredited. But he wants to win by playing it safe and, assuming it works, will then be trapped by his own strategy.
So many of our problems stem from winning being far more important to politicians than their actually doing anything worthwhile.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
(Snip) “When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
Had Ed Llewellyn just been in charge of an investigation into the leader of another party? Because that's where a massive issue lies.
And relevantly, Labour have form for this: in the way that Shami Chakrabarti came up with 'interesting' conclusions in her inquiry into anti-Semitism within Labour, essentially clearing the party, and then immediately got elevated to the Lords. Only for it to be shown that the party did indeed have significant issues with anti-Semitism.
So yes, perhaps there should be a delay before senior civil servants leave to work for political parties. (And I'd say the same for them going to work for large organisations that they might have had power over as well.)
The Gray Report should have no bearing whatsoever on her move to Team Starmer.
You are repeating Johnson's ludicrous defence that because she has taken an appointment with Labour her report must have been partisan and unfair to Johnson and Case. Gray has merely assimilated the evidence, which speaks for itself, and reported the facts. Case sent the invites and Johnson consumed the DoomBar in a manner which was wholly at odds with the guidance. Gray may have antagonised Case and Johnson for not pulling her punches, but she was tasked with laying out the facts, which she did.
It would appear Gray was subsequently isolated for banging Case to rights. She should seek advise from a top Lawyer and sue for constructive dismissal.
*If* she was talking to Starmer ad Labour when the report was being prepared, then it stinks as it throws 'independence' out of the widnow.
I am not repeating Johnson's defence. I am pointing out that Labour has form for this. It, and the Shami sham, sets really poor precedents, as it says to people: "Produce a report that is favourable to Labour, and Labour'll give you an advantage."
That probably did not happen in the Case case. But there will be lots of people who 'understand' this now.
If it wasn't for the precedent of the Shami shittiness, then I'd be much less suspicious about all of this.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Except that the politics are such that he could probably get an audience for a wider programme of radical change, given that both the current government and the current economic and fiscal settlement are so discredited. But he wants to win by playing it safe and, assuming it works, will then be trapped by his own strategy.
So many of our problems stem from winning being far more important to politicians than their actually doing anything worthwhile.
It’s a difficult tightrope to walk. I don’t envy him. The new Seldon book shows us what a politician looks like who generates hype and has no plan beyond winning,
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
Remember when lefties went on about Thatcher many years after leaving office. That’s you now. It might give you comfort to sing the old songs, but it demonstrates a disconnect from the problems of today.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
Full employment or labour shortage is no way to beat inflation. If you believe inflation is due to worker pressure and consumer demand, then unemployment is required to drive down wages etc.
Of course, if inflation is being driven by other factors external to our domestic economy then it won't work.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
I see Sunak is, according to the Times, eyeing more “Help to Buy”. Muppet.
No, it's completely logical. The entire point of the original Osborne scheme was to hyperinflate the asset wealth of the Tory core vote, whilst maintaining the pretence that the Government gave a flying fuck about the aspirations of the young. It's entirely consistent with modern Conservative values and policy.
Of course if Labour did it you would support it as helping the young... your hyperbole speaks volumes.
I would bloody well not. And the likelihood is that they are going to find some similar way to rig the market, because they are as frightened of the enormous grey vote as the Tories are - and would dearly love to peel some of them off.
Where you get this idea that I'm a Labour supporter from I don't know. I've been saying for a long time that the main reason why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country is because the politicians are all so very alike, and the differences between them are slight and superficial. Labour's offer come the next election is almost certainly going to be that it will manage decline better than the Tories, dressed up with a few extra windmills to make them appear modern and forward-looking.
Note, if you will, their risible council tax pledge for the local elections. If only there were a Labour Government, your council tax would not go up. Rejoice! Of course, there's no suggestion that local government needs a trainload more cash if it is going to fund anything other than social care. There's no suggestion that a system of local taxation that's based on property values in 1991, and mandates that the owner of a palace should pay no more than three times the charge levied on a studio flat, might need replacing with something better. No. It's all "we will freeze your council tax and get nasty oil companies to pay for it." Such a policy would provide a tiny amount of light relief to households at the expense of unpopular corporations (I'd have saved about £80 for this year on my Band B flat if my council tax hadn't gone up,) whilst doing absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problems in the system. It's facile, empty populism.
What Labour makes up for in not being quite so far up the fundaments of the wealthy as the Conservatives, it loses again in hypocrisy. If it cared at all about the miserable incomes of the poor it would tax the assets of the rich - and that means the property and investments of well-to-do middle-class people, and not just the profits of huge corporations. It would end the blanket triple lock for all pensioners and reserve generous hikes in social security for people who are actually struggling. It would construct a case for meaningful redistribution. What we're actually going to get out of them is tokenism and handwringing. And believe me, I'll be delighted to be proven wrong if they actually come out with a social democratic manifesto next year, rather than conservatism with a thin veneer of greenwash, and I shall repent of my cynicism should the latter indeed come to pass. But I'm not holding my breath.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
That’s fine, but it makes you sound like a loon.
The howls of outrage from Labour supporters if you point out Starmer is unfit for office by dint of his actions leads me to think I am flagging an issue they feel very worried about.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
That’s fine, but it makes you sound like a loon.
The howls of outrage from Labour supporters if you point out Starmer is unfit for office by dint of his actions leads me to think I am flagging an issue they feel very worried about.
As they should.
Just rolling eyes at your tedious predictability, You’re back at the demon eyes stage and have nothing left to offer.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
"Evil" is such a nebulous notion. If you are correct and Starmer was empowering a weapons-grade anti-Semite he could be covered by the term.
Starmer could argue he was fighting Corbyn and Corbynism from the inside, and having taken the opportunity has cleansed his party of a significant percentage of Momentum's mind-filth. So Starmer stayed ...
He is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
How do very high house prices help anybody, except those downsizing.
They help incumbent governments to get re-elected.
House prices rose by 206%, between 1997 and 2006. That boom generated a lot of borrowing, a lot of spending, and an incredible feelgood factor, and lots of tax revenue. It was behind Labour's landslide in 2001, their win in 2005, and not doing too badly in 2010.
But then, the benificiaries of this boom switched behind the incumbent Conservatives in droves.
The Conservatives have largely killed off the amateur buy to let market, but owner occupiers are still sitting on enormous gains.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Given the print media in the UK is mostly Conservative-supporting, I’m sure there are reporters examining Starmer’s and his wife’s financials. Given the Conservative Party itself is very well funded, I’m sure there are party activists examining Starmer’s and his wife’s financials. It’s pretty naive of you to imply that somehow everyone up to now has been deliberately avoiding shining any light on Starmer’s wife’s financials.
What matters is what the light then reveals. The reason we talk about Sunak’s wife’s financial dealings is because the have been multiple failures to appropriately declare conflicts of interest.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Surely Cherie Blair was/is a lawyer so obviously she would be involved with "dodgy" people, that's her Job. I don't know what Starmer's Wife's job is but I'm sure it's not on a par with grifting on her husband's policies a la Sunak.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I suppose the difference between Starmer (and also Sunak) and Johnson, was that Starmer worked for someone unfit for office, while Johnson was a person unfit for office.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Given the print media in the UK is mostly Conservative-supporting, I’m sure there are reporters examining Starmer’s and his wife’s financials. Given the Conservative Party itself is very well funded, I’m sure there are party activists examining Starmer’s and his wife’s financials. It’s pretty naive of you to imply that somehow everyone up to now has been deliberately avoiding shining any light on Starmer’s wife’s financials.
What matters is what the light then reveals. The reason we talk about Sunak’s wife’s financial dealings is because the have been multiple failures to appropriately declare conflicts of interest.
Not least that for years Mrs Sunak claimed to be Non-dom.
Musk predicts next Starship launch in a “couple months” https://spacenews.com/musk-predicts-next-starship-launch-in-a-couple-months/ ...Musk said while controllers initiated the flight termination system, it took much longer than expected, about 40 seconds, for explosives to rupture the vehicle’s tanks.
Requalifying that flight termination system will be the long-lead item for the next launch, he predicted, with the next vehicle and a repaired pad likely ready in six to eight weeks. “Hopefully, we’ll be ready to fly again in a couple months.”..
...“The engines on Booster 9, which is next, are much newer and more consistent, and with significant reliability improvements,” he said, along with improved shielding. “I think we’ll see a much more robust engine situation with Booster 9.”
He was optimistic that the second launch will get at least through stage separation. “Our goal for the next flight is make it to staging and hopefully succeed in staging and get to orbit,” he said. “I think we’ve got a decent shot of getting to orbit on the next flight.”..
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
The problem is that all of this was visible before he became PM. Yet the Conservative Party ignored these flaws and chose him to be leader - because they were so far up their own backsides over Brexit.
I heartily laugh at all the people who supported Boris for PM, and now disown him - as if they had not ignored his massive flaws in the first place...
Such as those twits? Hope they were never put in charge of anything important.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
...so there....naah nahh ne naah naah.
absolute rubbish.
No it's true.
Suppose it depends on your definition of "bankrupt". Its just that the national debt was so many times smaller on that day in 2010. So if we were bankrupt then, we must be mega bankrupt now.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Surely Cherie Blair was/is a lawyer so obviously she would be involved with "dodgy" people, that's her Job. I don't know what Starmer's Wife's job is but I'm sure it's not on a par with grifting on her husband's policies a la Sunak.
LOL. Apparently Victoria Starmer was also a solicitor. And that's a really, really poor defence of what happened with Cherie Blair.
"... grifting on her husband's policies"
Don't you see that this rather reinforces my point?
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
All right wing PBers have left are smears, because they can't defend the present government's record and certain people's policies and actions therein. (Paterson, Johnson, Jenrick, Zahawi, Braverman, Patel etc etc)
You evidently did not note my earlier denunciation of Johnson - a position and view I've had on here for well before he was elected as leader of the party or PM. In fact, it goes back to his days as MoL. Or my detestation of Jacob Rees-Worm and others.
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
But this is a straw man argument. If there is evidence of something dodgy in Mrs Starmer’s or Mrs Davey’s interests, then of course that is a matter worthy of concern. No-one has suggested a blanket ban on reporting of Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. You’re the only one who keeps bringing them up.
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
What is certain, is that Tories will do their best to demonise Starmer for having the temerity to challenge them. He will be described as some kind of threat or unsuitable for office, like they have done every single Labour leader since the dawn of time.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It is a dismal prospect of change though.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Starmer, if elected, would inherit a mess. Bear in mind that the government tries to present its best face, and even then everyone can see that the country is struggling post Brexit. Heaven alone knows what’s really going on behind the scenes. Managing expectations is a key part of this. It will be interesting to see what policies Starmer goes with in the weeks to come, but he has very little room for manoeuvre.
Nothing like the mess from the effectively bankrupt Britain after Brown had been in office. And we have full employment something Labour slways ends in making worse .
Debt is more than double what it was in 2010 so if we were bancrupt then what are we now?
Re Blair and Demon Eyes .. you could argue it was truthful given the way we were forced into an illegal war. So much for bring a Roman Catholic now and meeting the Pope. He will have another meeting later where he will have to answer for what he did.
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
I think it's divide and rule. The State is gorging itself on taxpayers' money - that is where the dissatisfaction should be directed, not at one group who seems to be doing a bit less poorly out of it than the rest.
I would just say that those attacking the triple lock need to realise it was Starmer who mounted a campaign to retain it, and both Starmer and Reeves have affirmed they will do so if they win office
I would also comment I have never approved of NI contributions stopping at 60, and everyone in employment no matter their age should pay NI
The government has a majority of 70 or so, they could have abolished/modified the triple lock.
You cannot pin this on Starmer.
Indeed I can as he and Reeves have stated it is not up for discussion and they are likely to be in power in 18 months time
Unspoofable.
Repeat after me, the government have a notional majority of 70 or so and can abolish and/or amend the triple lock tomorrow.
They choose not to.
Wait until you hear the other stuff the government does that Starmer opposes.
I was with my 76 year old Conservative supporting neighbour yesterday and he has a compelling case that the small boats problem is Labour's fault as they want the boat people over here because when they achieve their citizenship they vote Labour.
With experience comes wisdom.
Tell him SKS Labour has a hierarchy of racism similar to his
Well Marquee Mark often explains how fundamentally evil Starmer is for sharing a Shadow Cabinet table with an anti-Semite, so you may have a point.
MarqueeMark never uses the word "evil". But he does point out that a man who was so driven in his ambition he was prepared to work in the Shadow Cabinet of an anti-semite - indeed , worked for three years to make that anti-semite our Prime Minister - is in turn unfit to be Prime Minister himself.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
I agree, but I think you leave out two other points that make him completely unsuitable:
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.) - he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
One parliament governments are unusual in our system, the only post-war one being Heath. Without the Tory system of deposing a leader, I think it near certain that Starmer will not just win the next election, but the subsequent one too.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
I think Starmer will end up our Francois Hollande not even our Harold Wilson. If he quickly becomes unpopular I don't think he will stand again
The reason taxes are so high in the UK is because huge sums of money go toward elderly care, the NHS (primarily used by the elderly), and triple locked pensions.
Another story I heard today: A serving police officer is “looking forward” to a 2% pay rise this year. His father, who retired on 3/4 of final pay, gets 10%. The police officer calculates that in four years, his retired father will out-earn him.
How on earth is that sustainable?
The thing I confess I don’t understand is that Britain is hardly alone in its demographic burden. In fact, thanks to immigration, it does a little better than most of its advanced country peers. So how the fuck do they manage without the country “falling to bits”?
Time to wheel out one of my favourite stats again: in the UK, the average pensioner household after adjusting for housing costs has a higher level of disposable income than the average working household. There are still a lot of poor pensioners around, but the implication is that the average mortgage-free pensioner now enjoys a substantially higher standard of living than the average working-age taxpayer.
The triple lock and the ever-tightening squeeze on housing supply are purpose built to transfer both asset and liquid wealth upwards, from younger, poorer people to older, richer ones - by ensuring that, over time, the gap between earned incomes on the one hand, and pension incomes and house prices on the other, will grow wider and wider and wider.
Whats amazing is the lack of gratitude amongst many of the elderly. We locked down too to protect them but in return get more moaning.
This 79 year old and his 83 year old wife are extremely grateful for our blessings and I have consistently stated my opposition to the triple lock
Indeed when Sunak suggested he was reviewing the triple lock it was Starmer who led the opposition to its demise
As someone who is nearing his diamond wedding anniversary, and vividly remembers the Queens coronation in 1953, I accept times have changed but there is a rather ugly narrative coming from some regarding the elderly, who in most cases are loved and adored by their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and it is good that these unpleasant views are not shared by most of the populace
Yes - we do need to re-define the generational contract (so to speak) but that's platitudes.
@Casino_Royale has a point - in many societies, the family is the primary carer for elderly relatives and there are, I believe, around a million people (mainly women) who are economically inactive because they are the primary carer for an older relative.
How do we redefine the relationship between the generations to the mutual benefit of both and society?
Sorry to be a bore... but it's housing, innit?
As things stand, it's very difficult to support a family on one typical salary, if one of your costs is paying for somewhere to live, whether that's rent or a recently taken out mortgage. There isn't an intrinsic reason why this has to be so- we have just chosen to order things that way.
But for all we all know that the solution likes in the direction "Build more homes of a sort that people want to live in rather than inflating their price through artificial scarcity", nobody knows how to get re-elected after doing that. (I fear that the answer involves regional government and PR, so that individual representatives don't have to oppose builiding in their area for fear of their re-election.)
Housing is spectacularly nuanced - it's much more than just building more houses. Look at Cornwall if you want to see what happens when you allow market forces to drive housing.
Nothing in the UK housing market could be remotely considered “letting market forces” decide what gets built.
It’s the childish attempt to freeze the country in time, in terms of a twee, fake view of the past.
News Fucking Flash - the country has changed massively. That’s what mass immigration was *supposed* to do.
Own it and build the fucking houses.
That's just meaningless.
What are you proposing? A complete free-for-all with houses built on any spare piece of land ? What kind of houses, for whom?
The other truth, whether you like it or not, is collapsing the UK housing market just isn't going to happen. Too many people have too much at stake in bricks and mortar - for many it's their only capital asset to help them in later life because their actual pension is wholly inadequate.
Even if you abolished all planning restrictions it wouldn't be a complete free for all because of the need for municipal services.
As for prices not falling, things don't not happen just because people don't want them to. High asset prices are a function of the market, not a human right.
The trouble is that house prices are massive politically. A government knows if they collapse on their watch they'll be blamed and probably kicked out. So they do their damnedest to prevent this.
That’s only since our politics became infected with populism under New Labour. The previous government allowed prices to correct.
The notion of a house as a way to accrue wealth rather than something to live in took off in the Thatcher era.
Wasnt it said Thatcher wanted a country where men like her father could prosper but instead created one where men like her son prospered.
Yet her council house sales enabled millions to own a home and property for the first time whose families had never been able to do so before
And Thatcher left the next generation homeless. A wonderful woman.
I see Sunak is, according to the Times, eyeing more “Help to Buy”. Muppet.
No, it's completely logical. The entire point of the original Osborne scheme was to hyperinflate the asset wealth of the Tory core vote, whilst maintaining the pretence that the Government gave a flying fuck about the aspirations of the young. It's entirely consistent with modern Conservative values and policy.
Of course if Labour did it you would support it as helping the young... your hyperbole speaks volumes.
I would bloody well not. And the likelihood is that they are going to find some similar way to rig the market, because they are as frightened of the enormous grey vote as the Tories are - and would dearly love to peel some of them off.
Where you get this idea that I'm a Labour supporter from I don't know. I've been saying for a long time that the main reason why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country is because the politicians are all so very alike, and the differences between them are slight and superficial. Labour's offer come the next election is almost certainly going to be that it will manage decline better than the Tories, dressed up with a few extra windmills to make them appear modern and forward-looking.
Note, if you will, their risible council tax pledge for the local elections. If only there were a Labour Government, your council tax would not go up. Rejoice! Of course, there's no suggestion that local government needs a trainload more cash if it is going to fund anything other than social care. There's no suggestion that a system of local taxation that's based on property values in 1991, and mandates that the owner of a palace should pay no more than three times the charge levied on a studio flat, might need replacing with something better. No. It's all "we will freeze your council tax and get nasty oil companies to pay for it." Such a policy would provide a tiny amount of light relief to households at the expense of unpopular corporations (I'd have saved about £80 for this year on my Band B flat if my council tax hadn't gone up,) whilst doing absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problems in the system. It's facile, empty populism.
What Labour makes up for in not being quite so far up the fundaments of the wealthy as the Conservatives, it loses again in hypocrisy. If it cared at all about the miserable incomes of the poor it would tax the assets of the rich - and that means the property and investments of well-to-do middle-class people, and not just the profits of huge corporations. It would end the blanket triple lock for all pensioners and reserve generous hikes in social security for people who are actually struggling. It would construct a case for meaningful redistribution. What we're actually going to get out of them is tokenism and handwringing. And believe me, I'll be delighted to be proven wrong if they actually come out with a social democratic manifesto next year, rather than conservatism with a thin veneer of greenwash, and I shall repent of my cynicism should the latter indeed come to pass. But I'm not holding my breath.
Labour are playing politics.
To get elected, they will say they will fund lots of improvements by targeting popular targets such as the "very wealthy" - i.e. oil and gas companies and private schools. Of course, this will yield very small amounts of revenue, if it all.
In reality, once in office, they will further jack up your tax bill - as they always do - because that's where you have to go to get the big money if you want to expand the role of the State.
Johnson, nailed by Seldon, the book reviewed by Rawnsley. And what I thought when I met him; he just wanted to be important, there really is nothing else.
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
Boris and I share something in common, we both had school reports from Martin Hammond. Hammond was my old headmaster and took me for Latin for a brief period and wrote the end of my final report as head man
Comments
My sense of it is that MS will appeal and the appeal will be rejected. That will take them beyond July 18th at which point the exit fee rises from $1bn to $3bn. If I was advising MS, I'd say bail out now, pay the $1bn and clean house at Xbox.
What I'm really struggling to understand is how MS didn't see this coming. They really do seem completely unprepared to be told no by a regulator that was named by ABK as one of the four that must approve the deal for it to go ahead. Going in at 70% market share and then proposing to buy a player that will propel them to near 80% share directly and almost 90% indirectly was always going to be a big ask. If the EC doesn't come to an identical conclusion I'd be shocked simply because the maths is so obvious.
In general the number 6 market player buying the number 3 market player was inevitably going to face resistance at some level and the way that MS decided to downplay the console and PC side of things and play up the move being for cloud and mobile has hugely backfired on them. In cloud it is the number 1 player buying the number 3 player and no significant remedies were offered to prevent entrenching their cloud position as the monopoly player.
As for people suggesting it means the UK is closed for business, I'd say it's quite the opposite, it signals that the UK is open for business and small competitors won't be muscled out by monopoly players. If anything this will significantly help attract smaller and medium sized tech companies to the UK as a place to grow. What we need is for listing rules to support these companies in attracting institutional investment so they don't need to go to the US for their IPO.
https://www.leedsth.nhs.uk/a-z-of-services/hearing-and-balance-centre-audiology/hearing-loss-and-dementia/
- The risk of getting dementia almost doubles if you have an untreated mild hearing loss
- With a moderate hearing loss, the risk of dementia triples
- With a severe untreated hearing loss you are five times more likely to develop dementia
The present owners have just sold it for £275,000
Stagnation: when the average person can afford to start a family in their mid-20s
Dynamism: when they can't
The only advice I would give is that sometimes you have to be cold and dispassionate. The day we took his car keys away required a significant dose of "cruel to be kind" to get through.
14,712,857,518,508 Norwegian krone.
https://www.nbim.no/
The fact that most of the booking systems are broken is not important, since there are no phone lines answered. So no complaints can The housing market still went up and down. It wasn’t a one way bet
I bought my first flat for the same number of pounds in 1996 that it sold for when first built in 1988. So a decade of price increases had vanished.
Imagine that.
It was accepted. Stuff happens.
Imagine that.
Of all of the charges laid with such vituperation at the door of Boris Johnson as to why he was unfit to be Prime Minister, none is more damning of his unfitness for office as that I will repeatedly lie at the door of SKS.
SKS is not "evil". But SKS's track record makes him unfit for high office. In that opinion, I am unshakable.
Regional HPI indicates the average prices for Yorks and Humber were 141093 and 154121 for those quarters.
The big house price growth in the 2010s was a bit of a London / London commutable phenomenon I think. The 2000s (decade) house price growth was more general.
Starmer could argue he was fighting Corbyn and Corbynism from the inside, and having taken the opportunity has cleansed his party of a significant percentage of Momentum's mind-filth. So Starmer stayed, let's take Chuka Umuna, Labour's last Leader in waiting. How did leaving the party on principle work out for him? What has been his role in clearing out the Augean Stables?
We were up long before the day-o
To welcome in the summertime
To welcome in the May-o
For summer is coming in
And winter's gone away
It would allow any MP to say something absolutely outrageous, and then produce an alleged 'final version' that scraped through within the rules.
She wrote that letter, and sent it in twice. Added to previous comments she has made, it's clear that her attitude to racism is somewhat different to the one I understand, and one I certainly don't agree with.
- he ran for Labour leader under a Corbynite platform, but has cynically ditched it, using excuses that are so ridiculous that they insult intelligence (the pandemic has shown that Corbynism doesn't work, etc.)
- he runs as a technocrat, but is in fact incompetent - see his record during the pandemic, for instance, when he never questioned the government except to demand longer and harsher restrictions, even when it was obvious they didn't work. Or his policy on Brexit under Corbyn, which was incomprehensible, and failed even on its own terms.
If he does win the next general election, I think he'll be very unpopular very quickly after the usual honeymoon period.
We had another poster a week or so ago who also was obsessed with Western use of antidepressants.
Would you like to tell me if antidepressant use is more common among (a) those in work, and (b) those not in work.
Take your time.
The cabinet secretary has been accused of having a vendetta against Sue Gray, who investigated lockdown parties in Downing Street, after pushing for her to be banned from taking a job with the Labour Party for at least a year.
Senior Whitehall sources have said that Simon Case was “instrumental” in a recommendation that Gray should be barred from taking up a role as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff until next March at the earliest.
The move has caused disquiet in Whitehall amid concerns that it could set a “dangerous precedent” and is “out of kilter” with previous periods of gardening leave imposed on former civil servants. One source claimed that Case’s hard line was “personal”, while another said he was pursuing a “vindictive” agenda against Gray after she strongly criticised the civil service leadership over the Downing Street parties...
One Whitehall source said Case had been instrumental in recommending a ban of at least a year — arguing that Gray had undermined key civil service principles of honesty and impartiality. “He always disliked her and it feels very personal,” they said. “The idea of a long ban is very much being driven by him.”
Another source said: “It is clearly vindictive as there is simply no precedent for it. Senior civil servants have gone to work for political parties in the past without any special conditions. It is very hard to see how it can be justified.”
One senior Tory also expressed concern that it could lead to a precedent that would backfire on the party, saying: “She really wasn’t central in Whitehall. She was the second permanent secretary in the Levelling Up Department.
“When Ed Llewellyn moved from the Foreign Office to become [David] Cameron’s chief of staff [in 2005] he didn’t have to wait. Are we really saying we want an effective ban on officials going to work for political parties — because that is what a one-year ban is. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whitehall-row-between-simon-case-and-sue-gray-is-personal-insiders-say-bhv59csxk
Martin Hammond’s infamous notes on Johnson at Eton, which recorded his “disgracefully cavalier attitude”, his “gross failure of responsibility” and his deep-seated belief that he “should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else” is the opening source of Seldon’s account. Johnson’s “end was in his beginning”, he argues.
Talking about him, Seldon acknowledges the former prime minister’s charisma “lights up the room”, but you sense too his almost personal feeling of betrayal at the squandering of those gifts, that headmasterly reaction that Johnson had let down his school, his family, his nation, but most of all, himself. His only discernible ambition, Seldon says, was that “like Roman emperors he wanted monuments in his name”.
One of the striking aspects of his book is that the world beyond the confines of No 10, the reality of unprecedented national crisis in millions of people’s lives, hardly ever gets a look in, so concerned are the principal actors in this drama with protecting their sorry backsides.
[Seldon says] “At his heart, he is extraordinarily empty. He can’t keep faithful to any idea, any person, any wife.”
“The great prime ministers are all there at moments of great historical importance,” he says. “But they have to respond to them well. Chamberlain didn’t; Churchill in 1940, did. Asquith didn’t; Lloyd George did in 1916. Johnson had Brexit, he had the pandemic, he had the invasion of Ukraine and incipient third world war. He could have been the prime minister he craved to be, but he wasn’t, because of his utter inability to learn.”
And relevantly, Labour have form for this: in the way that Shami Chakrabarti came up with 'interesting' conclusions in her inquiry into anti-Semitism within Labour, essentially clearing the party, and then immediately got elevated to the Lords. Only for it to be shown that the party did indeed have significant issues with anti-Semitism.
So yes, perhaps there should be a delay before senior civil servants leave to work for political parties. (And I'd say the same for them going to work for large organisations that they might have had power over as well.)
I heartily laugh at all the people who supported Boris for PM, and now disown him - as if they had not ignored his massive flaws in the first place...
Had he been any actual good, this would have been avoided.
The only question in my mind is whether the first one in a minority or majority government. With the former I would anticipate a new election fairly quickly like Wilson in 1966 or the second 1974 one.
Starmer is no Blair, but he might be a Wilson.
The BoE guy unfortunately is right. We have to recognise that we are a poorer country, used to living beyond our means, which isn't a great election winning message for either party. Particularly not one of government.
You are repeating Johnson's ludicrous defence that because she has taken an appointment with Labour her report must have been partisan and unfair to Johnson and Case. Gray has merely assimilated the evidence, which speaks for itself, and reported the facts. Case sent the invites and Johnson consumed the DoomBar in a manner which was wholly at odds with the guidance. Gray may have antagonised Case and Johnson for not pulling her punches, but she was tasked with laying out the facts, which she did.
It would appear Gray was subsequently isolated for banging Case to rights. She should seek advise from a top Lawyer and sue for constructive dismissal.
Quite frankly right now, it’s all they have left, such is their lack of vision and dismal record.
It is time for change.
It seems Starmer is going to outline some policies in a series of set piece speeches these next few weeks, and that will be instructive.
The demonisation of him as tolerant of Corbynism or Anti-Semitism is absurd. His actions on these issues since becoming leader speak for themselves.
Where you get this idea that I'm a Labour supporter from I don't know. I've been saying for a long time that the main reason why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country is because the politicians are all so very alike, and the differences between them are slight and superficial. Labour's offer come the next election is almost certainly going to be that it will manage decline better than the Tories, dressed up with a few extra windmills to make them appear modern and forward-looking.
Note, if you will, their risible council tax pledge for the local elections. If only there were a Labour Government, your council tax would not go up. Rejoice! Of course, there's no suggestion that local government needs a trainload more cash if it is going to fund anything other than social care. There's no suggestion that a system of local taxation that's based on property values in 1991, and mandates that the owner of a palace should pay no more than three times the charge levied on a studio flat, might need replacing with something better. No. It's all "we will freeze your council tax and get nasty oil companies to pay for it." Such a policy would provide a tiny amount of light relief to households at the expense of unpopular corporations (I'd have saved about £80 for this year on my Band B flat if my council tax hadn't gone up,) whilst doing absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problems in the system. It's facile, empty populism.
What Labour makes up for in not being quite so far up the fundaments of the wealthy as the Conservatives, it loses again in hypocrisy. If it cared at all about the miserable incomes of the poor it would tax the assets of the rich - and that means the property and investments of well-to-do middle-class people, and not just the profits of huge corporations. It would end the blanket triple lock for all pensioners and reserve generous hikes in social security for people who are actually struggling. It would construct a case for meaningful redistribution. What we're actually going to get out of them is tokenism and handwringing. And believe me, I'll be delighted to be proven wrong if they actually come out with a social democratic manifesto next year, rather than conservatism with a thin veneer of greenwash, and I shall repent of my cynicism should the latter indeed come to pass. But I'm not holding my breath.
But while his networking may have got him to the top, it hasn't exactly been good for the civil service. On his watch its reputation has been absolutely trashed.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
So many of our problems stem from winning being far more important to politicians than their actually doing anything worthwhile.
I am not repeating Johnson's defence. I am pointing out that Labour has form for this. It, and the Shami sham, sets really poor precedents, as it says to people: "Produce a report that is favourable to Labour, and Labour'll give you an advantage."
That probably did not happen in the Case case. But there will be lots of people who 'understand' this now.
If it wasn't for the precedent of the Shami shittiness, then I'd be much less suspicious about all of this.
Of course, if inflation is being driven by other factors external to our domestic economy then it won't work.
absolute rubbish.
I absolutely agree with this
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
As they should.
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
House prices rose by 206%, between 1997 and 2006. That boom generated a lot of borrowing, a lot of spending, and an incredible feelgood factor, and lots of tax revenue. It was behind Labour's landslide in 2001, their win in 2005, and not doing too badly in 2010.
But then, the benificiaries of this boom switched behind the incumbent Conservatives in droves.
The Conservatives have largely killed off the amateur buy to let market, but owner occupiers are still sitting on enormous gains.
What matters is what the light then reveals. The reason we talk about Sunak’s wife’s financial dealings is because the have been multiple failures to appropriately declare conflicts of interest.
Cost of living crisis forcing some older people to stay in work as data shows 61% increase in number of over-70s in employment
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/30/british-workers-work-into-70s-cost-of-living
I'm also unsure I'm 'right-wing'. I daresay Max or Casino see me as one of the devilish wokish sorts.
But my point is this: if you are attacking Sunak through his wife's interests, then Starmer's wife's interests are also fair game. As would Ed Davey's if he had a realistic chance at power. And Cherie Blair shows well that Labour figures are not immune to associating with charlatans and having dodgy connections.
It's pretty much just partisanship to disagree with that.
Musk predicts next Starship launch in a “couple months”
https://spacenews.com/musk-predicts-next-starship-launch-in-a-couple-months/
...Musk said while controllers initiated the flight termination system, it took much longer than expected, about 40 seconds, for explosives to rupture the vehicle’s tanks.
Requalifying that flight termination system will be the long-lead item for the next launch, he predicted, with the next vehicle and a repaired pad likely ready in six to eight weeks. “Hopefully, we’ll be ready to fly again in a couple months.”..
...“The engines on Booster 9, which is next, are much newer and more consistent, and with significant reliability improvements,” he said, along with improved shielding. “I think we’ll see a much more robust engine situation with Booster 9.”
He was optimistic that the second launch will get at least through stage separation. “Our goal for the next flight is make it to staging and hopefully succeed in staging and get to orbit,” he said. “I think we’ve got a decent shot of getting to orbit on the next flight.”..
"... grifting on her husband's policies"
Don't you see that this rather reinforces my point?
What matters is the actual examples of conflicts of interest. We have those for Mrs Sunak; we don’t for Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey. Your argument that the wife of a Labour leader, four leaders ago, may have had conflicts of interest is risible.
I can think of another case where the spouse of a party leader has gotten into difficulty with claims of dodgy behaviour, currently under investigation, and Peter Murrell has been discussed at length! If you have some evidence against Mrs Starmer or Mrs Davey, we’re all ears, but you don’t.
Otherwise, why are we talking about her ?
Teachers asked to chip in £1 each for legal case against Ofsted
Fair Judgement raises funds for case in response to death of Berkshire primary headteacher Ruth Perry
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/may/01/teachers-asked-to-chip-in-1-each-for-legal-case-against-ofsted
There is a link for contributions (I won't post here, to avoid falling foul of the PB anti spam rules)
To get elected, they will say they will fund lots of improvements by targeting popular targets such as the "very wealthy" - i.e. oil and gas companies and private schools. Of course, this will yield very small amounts of revenue, if it all.
In reality, once in office, they will further jack up your tax bill - as they always do - because that's where you have to go to get the big money if you want to expand the role of the State.
We need growth. We need strategy. And the pay-off for those policies might only be 15-20 years down the line.
Are there any governments brave enough to put in the whole nine yards on this?