On Braverman - if you were in a private business and you tried to get an underling to sort out your personal stuff like this I doubt it would be deemed acceptable. And that's before you get on to her using the machinery of government as leverage. Let's not forget that civil servants are supposed to be getting on with other things i.e the business of government. I suppose it might be acceptable if you were the owner of the company. And therein is perhaps the problem. Braverman probably sees herself as the Empress of the Home Office. This is happening too often. She doesn't understand the ministerial code* and isn't prepared to learn. She needs to go.
*Of course it isn't clear if she broke the ministerial code because civil servants may have refused to let her.
Meanwhile in other news (as already linked above):
Senior Tories are warning their party will be finished should it undergo “a Trumpian style takeover” from the right, amid growing concerns that it risks political meltdown in its “blue wall” heartlands.
Prominent Conservatives from across the party are now increasingly concerned that a tilt to the right and anger over the handling of Brexit could lead to the party’s support collapsing in liberal, home counties seats in the same way that Labour imploded in Scotland in 2015.
Lord Heseltine, the former deputy prime minister, said his party was now heading to lose the next election and would require a complete rebuild in the wake of defeat. “At the moment the party is tearing itself apart,” he said. “It was Rab Butler who rebuilt the party after the 1945 defeat, with a completely new party, policy and philosophy. The party knew it had to win power. The same thing is going to happen after this next election.”
Vaizey warns that a lurch to the right could allow Labour to dominate for years. “We have been here before,” he writes. “After our defeat in 1997, so many Conservatives blamed the outcome on our party not being Conservative enough. It was a long and hard struggle to get the party back to the mainstream, and to re-learn the lesson that you only win in politics by looking forward, not back. “You actually have to like the country in which you live, and want to make it better, in order for the public to want to back you. Harking back to a golden age, with a wish-list of policies that are completely absurd in a modern, developed nation, is for the birds.”
Just seen those Sunak press conference clips. Dire doesn’t begin to cover it. They had hours to prepare a response. How on earth did they manage to come up with something so bad?
He needs to work hard on this. Right now he is a destitute man’s Ed Miliband, only worse.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
Well, if the tax is on earnings and you have very poor earnings during your life, you wouldn't pay it back and wouldn't have a debt hanging over you. So there are potentially psychological and pecuniary differences between this and a loan. But the devil is in the detail, and that's what I'm missing.
The reason the current scheme (student loans) was not a tax, was that it would provide an incentive for people with a degree to leave the country.
It would also disadvantage U.K. based companies by making staff (in effect) more expensive - they would have to pay them more to take home the same. So the incentive would be to employee people overseas.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
I see the Bakhmut story has been clarified - Ukraine defence ministry says that Zelensky was referring to the fact that the city has been utterly destroyed and the population gone, and that the battle is maneuvering around its ruins.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
Well, if the tax is on earnings and you have very poor earnings during your life, you wouldn't pay it back and wouldn't have a debt hanging over you. So there are potentially psychological and pecuniary differences between this and a loan. But the devil is in the detail, and that's what I'm missing.
The reason the current scheme (student loans) was not a tax, was that it would provide an incentive for people with a degree to leave the country.
It would also disadvantage U.K. based companies by making staff (in effect) more expensive - they would have to pay them more to take home the same. So the incentive would be to employee people overseas.
Very much so. I would add that the major employee subject to such wage pressures would be of course, the government.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
Well, if the tax is on earnings and you have very poor earnings during your life, you wouldn't pay it back and wouldn't have a debt hanging over you. So there are potentially psychological and pecuniary differences between this and a loan. But the devil is in the detail, and that's what I'm missing.
The reason the current scheme (student loans) was not a tax, was that it would provide an incentive for people with a degree to leave the country.
It would also disadvantage U.K. based companies by making staff (in effect) more expensive - they would have to pay them more to take home the same. So the incentive would be to employee people overseas.
No, the reason the current student loan scheme is not a tax is simply that George Osborne refused to countenance any new taxes.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
Meanwhile in other news (as already linked above):
Senior Tories are warning their party will be finished should it undergo “a Trumpian style takeover” from the right, amid growing concerns that it risks political meltdown in its “blue wall” heartlands.
Prominent Conservatives from across the party are now increasingly concerned that a tilt to the right and anger over the handling of Brexit could lead to the party’s support collapsing in liberal, home counties seats in the same way that Labour imploded in Scotland in 2015.
Lord Heseltine, the former deputy prime minister, said his party was now heading to lose the next election and would require a complete rebuild in the wake of defeat. “At the moment the party is tearing itself apart,” he said. “It was Rab Butler who rebuilt the party after the 1945 defeat, with a completely new party, policy and philosophy. The party knew it had to win power. The same thing is going to happen after this next election.”
Vaizey warns that a lurch to the right could allow Labour to dominate for years. “We have been here before,” he writes. “After our defeat in 1997, so many Conservatives blamed the outcome on our party not being Conservative enough. It was a long and hard struggle to get the party back to the mainstream, and to re-learn the lesson that you only win in politics by looking forward, not back. “You actually have to like the country in which you live, and want to make it better, in order for the public to want to back you. Harking back to a golden age, with a wish-list of policies that are completely absurd in a modern, developed nation, is for the birds.”
The Conservatives have forgotten about aspiration.
And aspiration requires affordable housing.
They've also forgotten about the work ethic.
And think that the way to get rich is by receiving vast money for vague services based on who you know.
That might work for politicians and their dubious friends but it doesn't for voters.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
I feel like I'm on a bit of a journey RE tuition fees and loans. I'm beginning to suspect this half-market system isn't sustainable and so you can go back to the days where the top x% get fully funded places or the whole thing is opened up with fees set less by the Government and more by the market.
The advantage of the former is that it won't load students with debt but, absent Herculean political will, would result in more restricted access to University (something I believe is neither in the interests of students nor in the interests of the country).
The latter route would see fees rise, and in some cases pretty astronomically. I'm not in favour of removing the cap on fees entirely, but to a point where Universities would actually start to differentiate themselves on fees. This would allow Universities some breathing space and give them a lever to raise some income. The rate and periods of repayment, interest etc would all need to be optimised based political objectives (no write-off, for example?) but it would be likely that a substantial number of loans will never fully be repaid, leaving the tax payer on the hook for some of the book. In that case the loan acts as a kind of subsidy, which I think is as fair as possible. Under this system, Universities will be given a mechanism for increasing their own funding and, for students, University will remain 'free at the point of use.' The problem then is selling the whole thing to debt-averse students, who might come from poorer backgrounds, that it's worth it. But that's a job for Universities.
Then I read all that I've written and wonder what happened to me, man. Marketisation of Universities? Fuck me!
The bit that needs to be dropped, is the government underwriting the loans. If the university, the bank, and the student, had to agree on the fees, then we would see a rebalancing towards actually useful degrees. No bank would offer loans on courses that lead nowhere in terms of career development.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
Well, if the tax is on earnings and you have very poor earnings during your life, you wouldn't pay it back and wouldn't have a debt hanging over you. So there are potentially psychological and pecuniary differences between this and a loan. But the devil is in the detail, and that's what I'm missing.
The reason the current scheme (student loans) was not a tax, was that it would provide an incentive for people with a degree to leave the country.
It would also disadvantage U.K. based companies by making staff (in effect) more expensive - they would have to pay them more to take home the same. So the incentive would be to employee people overseas.
No, the reason the current student loan scheme is not a tax is simply that George Osborne refused to countenance any new taxes.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
I feel like I'm on a bit of a journey RE tuition fees and loans. I'm beginning to suspect this half-market system isn't sustainable and so you can go back to the days where the top x% get fully funded places or the whole thing is opened up with fees set less by the Government and more by the market.
The advantage of the former is that it won't load students with debt but, absent Herculean political will, would result in more restricted access to University (something I believe is neither in the interests of students nor in the interests of the country).
The latter route would see fees rise, and in some cases pretty astronomically. I'm not in favour of removing the cap on fees entirely, but to a point where Universities would actually start to differentiate themselves on fees. This would allow Universities some breathing space and give them a lever to raise some income. The rate and periods of repayment, interest etc would all need to be optimised based political objectives (no write-off, for example?) but it would be likely that a substantial number of loans will never fully be repaid, leaving the tax payer on the hook for some of the book. In that case the loan acts as a kind of subsidy, which I think is as fair as possible. Under this system, Universities will be given a mechanism for increasing their own funding and, for students, University will remain 'free at the point of use.' The problem then is selling the whole thing to debt-averse students, who might come from poorer backgrounds, that it's worth it. But that's a job for Universities.
Then I read all that I've written and wonder what happened to me, man. Marketisation of Universities? Fuck me!
The bit that needs to be dropped, is the government underwriting the loans. If the university, the bank, and the student, had to agree on the fees, then we would see a rebalancing towards actually useful degrees. No bank would offer loans on courses that lead nowhere in terms of career development.
Trouble is that the correlation between degrees and riches works for cohorts, not individuals.
Some maths grads are paid shedloads, but others (teachers, say) aren't. If you personalise the liability, and stop it being income-contingent, a lot of graduates in the public sector are going to become a lot more expensive.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
I feel like I'm on a bit of a journey RE tuition fees and loans. I'm beginning to suspect this half-market system isn't sustainable and so you can go back to the days where the top x% get fully funded places or the whole thing is opened up with fees set less by the Government and more by the market.
The advantage of the former is that it won't load students with debt but, absent Herculean political will, would result in more restricted access to University (something I believe is neither in the interests of students nor in the interests of the country).
The latter route would see fees rise, and in some cases pretty astronomically. I'm not in favour of removing the cap on fees entirely, but to a point where Universities would actually start to differentiate themselves on fees. This would allow Universities some breathing space and give them a lever to raise some income. The rate and periods of repayment, interest etc would all need to be optimised based political objectives (no write-off, for example?) but it would be likely that a substantial number of loans will never fully be repaid, leaving the tax payer on the hook for some of the book. In that case the loan acts as a kind of subsidy, which I think is as fair as possible. Under this system, Universities will be given a mechanism for increasing their own funding and, for students, University will remain 'free at the point of use.' The problem then is selling the whole thing to debt-averse students, who might come from poorer backgrounds, that it's worth it. But that's a job for Universities.
Then I read all that I've written and wonder what happened to me, man. Marketisation of Universities? Fuck me!
The bit that needs to be dropped, is the government underwriting the loans. If the university, the bank, and the student, had to agree on the fees, then we would see a rebalancing towards actually useful degrees. No bank would offer loans on courses that lead nowhere in terms of career development.
I agree with you; and also Unpopular's model is pretty much what I've been advocating for 20-odd years. The other missing link is widening non-university routes into careers. Which I think we are slowly (too slowly) doing.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
Well, if the tax is on earnings and you have very poor earnings during your life, you wouldn't pay it back and wouldn't have a debt hanging over you. So there are potentially psychological and pecuniary differences between this and a loan. But the devil is in the detail, and that's what I'm missing.
The reason the current scheme (student loans) was not a tax, was that it would provide an incentive for people with a degree to leave the country.
It would also disadvantage U.K. based companies by making staff (in effect) more expensive - they would have to pay them more to take home the same. So the incentive would be to employee people overseas.
No, the reason the current student loan scheme is not a tax is simply that George Osborne refused to countenance any new taxes.
Both of the were presented as reasons for not having a graduate tax at the time of the move to the present system.
Talking about shitty entitled politicians and on topic.
One of Scotland’s most left-wing MPs is under fire for using parliamentary expenses to have his phone couriered from his house to Westminster.
Chris Stephens of the SNP has promised to repay the £130 he claimed to retrieve his phone, which he had left at home, to the House of Commons. Critics have said, however, that it is outrageous that taxpayers should have been asked to foot the bill for his “forgetfulness”.
Stephens, a former trade union organiser and avowed socialist, is part of the SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn’s frontbench team. He has represented Glasgow South West since 2015.
Records published by the Westminster authorities show that Stephens filed the claim for £129.88 on December 12 last year. The expense was described as “courier for MP’s mobile as was left in Glasgow and needed for debate tomorrow”.
Challenged by the Scottish Daily Mail, Stephens said it had always been his intention to pay the bill himself and that he had told his office staff this at the time.
“Basically, I left my mobile in the house and I couldn’t contact folk. I am paying it back,” he said. “I’m paying it back on the basis that I accept it was my fault, I left the phone so I’m paying it back.”
Asked why the claim had gone through on expenses, he said: ’”Well, it was to get something from A to B and my office arranged it, so it was as simple as that.”
Arnold Schwarzanneger just been on Kuenssberg followed by Therese Coffey, quite a contrast
I once met Arnold Schwarznegger in HMV London, ironically I was looking for the The Terminator Blu Ray Boxset, I was struggling to find it, and he helpfully told me it was in aisle b, back.
Your coat. Don't come back...
You're another person that doesn't appreciate my magnificent and subtle puns.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
I feel like I'm on a bit of a journey RE tuition fees and loans. I'm beginning to suspect this half-market system isn't sustainable and so you can go back to the days where the top x% get fully funded places or the whole thing is opened up with fees set less by the Government and more by the market.
The advantage of the former is that it won't load students with debt but, absent Herculean political will, would result in more restricted access to University (something I believe is neither in the interests of students nor in the interests of the country).
The latter route would see fees rise, and in some cases pretty astronomically. I'm not in favour of removing the cap on fees entirely, but to a point where Universities would actually start to differentiate themselves on fees. This would allow Universities some breathing space and give them a lever to raise some income. The rate and periods of repayment, interest etc would all need to be optimised based political objectives (no write-off, for example?) but it would be likely that a substantial number of loans will never fully be repaid, leaving the tax payer on the hook for some of the book. In that case the loan acts as a kind of subsidy, which I think is as fair as possible. Under this system, Universities will be given a mechanism for increasing their own funding and, for students, University will remain 'free at the point of use.' The problem then is selling the whole thing to debt-averse students, who might come from poorer backgrounds, that it's worth it. But that's a job for Universities.
Then I read all that I've written and wonder what happened to me, man. Marketisation of Universities? Fuck me!
The bit that needs to be dropped, is the government underwriting the loans. If the university, the bank, and the student, had to agree on the fees, then we would see a rebalancing towards actually useful degrees. No bank would offer loans on courses that lead nowhere in terms of career development.
I agree with you; and also Unpopular's model is pretty much what I've been advocating for 20-odd years. The other missing link is widening non-university routes into careers. Which I think we are slowly (too slowly) doing.
Oh, and the other other missing link is more funded places for the types of courses we as a nation want to produce more graduates of. Too few maths graduates? Too few engineers? Too few medics? Too few teachers? Pay for their training. Better than forcing everyone to do maths to 18. That does rely on our judgement of what we have too fee of being correct, of course.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
I feel like I'm on a bit of a journey RE tuition fees and loans. I'm beginning to suspect this half-market system isn't sustainable and so you can go back to the days where the top x% get fully funded places or the whole thing is opened up with fees set less by the Government and more by the market.
The advantage of the former is that it won't load students with debt but, absent Herculean political will, would result in more restricted access to University (something I believe is neither in the interests of students nor in the interests of the country).
The latter route would see fees rise, and in some cases pretty astronomically. I'm not in favour of removing the cap on fees entirely, but to a point where Universities would actually start to differentiate themselves on fees. This would allow Universities some breathing space and give them a lever to raise some income. The rate and periods of repayment, interest etc would all need to be optimised based political objectives (no write-off, for example?) but it would be likely that a substantial number of loans will never fully be repaid, leaving the tax payer on the hook for some of the book. In that case the loan acts as a kind of subsidy, which I think is as fair as possible. Under this system, Universities will be given a mechanism for increasing their own funding and, for students, University will remain 'free at the point of use.' The problem then is selling the whole thing to debt-averse students, who might come from poorer backgrounds, that it's worth it. But that's a job for Universities.
Then I read all that I've written and wonder what happened to me, man. Marketisation of Universities? Fuck me!
The bit that needs to be dropped, is the government underwriting the loans. If the university, the bank, and the student, had to agree on the fees, then we would see a rebalancing towards actually useful degrees. No bank would offer loans on courses that lead nowhere in terms of career development.
Trouble is that the correlation between degrees and riches works for cohorts, not individuals.
Some maths grads are paid shedloads, but others (teachers, say) aren't. If you personalise the liability, and stop it being income-contingent, a lot of graduates in the public sector are going to become a lot more expensive.
That’s a fair point. I’d expect government to at least partially fund scholarships in STEM subjects, or to subsidise those to go on to work in the public sector.
Can I ask a stupid question? There's been some talk over the years of the idea of a graduate tax. What does this actually entail? Do they mean students who start after a certain cut off point will have a special tax code that means their income tax will be higher? Or does it apply to anybody who has graduated irrespective of when? I can't quite believe anybody would be stupid enough to make earlier graduates pay, but it's on my mind and I can't seem to find details about the idea.
The current tax, sorry student loan scheme, is in some respects a graduate tax, obviously, is it not? With some very odd behaviour admittedly, and with payment limited to actual drawings plus an unfair rate of interest.
I feel like I'm on a bit of a journey RE tuition fees and loans. I'm beginning to suspect this half-market system isn't sustainable and so you can go back to the days where the top x% get fully funded places or the whole thing is opened up with fees set less by the Government and more by the market.
The advantage of the former is that it won't load students with debt but, absent Herculean political will, would result in more restricted access to University (something I believe is neither in the interests of students nor in the interests of the country).
The latter route would see fees rise, and in some cases pretty astronomically. I'm not in favour of removing the cap on fees entirely, but to a point where Universities would actually start to differentiate themselves on fees. This would allow Universities some breathing space and give them a lever to raise some income. The rate and periods of repayment, interest etc would all need to be optimised based political objectives (no write-off, for example?) but it would be likely that a substantial number of loans will never fully be repaid, leaving the tax payer on the hook for some of the book. In that case the loan acts as a kind of subsidy, which I think is as fair as possible. Under this system, Universities will be given a mechanism for increasing their own funding and, for students, University will remain 'free at the point of use.' The problem then is selling the whole thing to debt-averse students, who might come from poorer backgrounds, that it's worth it. But that's a job for Universities.
Then I read all that I've written and wonder what happened to me, man. Marketisation of Universities? Fuck me!
The bit that needs to be dropped, is the government underwriting the loans. If the university, the bank, and the student, had to agree on the fees, then we would see a rebalancing towards actually useful degrees. No bank would offer loans on courses that lead nowhere in terms of career development.
Trouble is that the correlation between degrees and riches works for cohorts, not individuals.
Some maths grads are paid shedloads, but others (teachers, say) aren't. If you personalise the liability, and stop it being income-contingent, a lot of graduates in the public sector are going to become a lot more expensive.
That’s a fair point. I’d expect government to at least partially fund scholarships in STEM subjects, or to subsidise those to go on to work in the public sector.
Payoff the loans for medics, teachers etc over 7 years
1) while they are working all interest payments are handled via the employer. It’s no longer your problem. Relax. 2) the repayment of principle is handled on an escalating basis - first year small, last year 1/3rd of the total loan.
7 years because you get a reasonable return. At the end of 7 years, most people will be quite set in their profession as well.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Many major politicians have a dreadful close relative or 2. It was a cross to bear for Carter. And Clinton.
2015, 24% = 1 seat. Very different result under PR. Under FPTP, voters across a country wanting to make a point know exactly what to do in every constituency.
Arnold Schwarzanneger just been on Kuenssberg followed by Therese Coffey, quite a contrast
I once met Arnold Schwarznegger in HMV London, ironically I was looking for the The Terminator Blu Ray Boxset, I was struggling to find it, and he helpfully told me it was in aisle b, back.
Your coat. Don't come back...
You're another person that doesn't appreciate my magnificent and subtle puns.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
I see the Bakhmut story has been clarified - Ukraine defence ministry says that Zelensky was referring to the fact that the city has been utterly destroyed and the population gone, and that the battle is maneuvering around its ruins.
It's obviously largely true. But one of the local refugees says her grandmother is holed up there, refusing to leave. She spends her days in her cellar, wrapped in blankets, surviving on what a few nearby friends are still able to pick up - like nearly all devastated cities, there are still a few places functioning. Her daughter is trying to persuade her to leave but she says it's her home, and she's not giving up. Not clear if she's pro-Ukraine or pro-Russian or (as I suspect) merely stubbornly determined not to let anyone drive her out.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
Talking about shitty entitled politicians and on topic.
One of Scotland’s most left-wing MPs is under fire for using parliamentary expenses to have his phone couriered from his house to Westminster.
Chris Stephens of the SNP has promised to repay the £130 he claimed to retrieve his phone, which he had left at home, to the House of Commons. Critics have said, however, that it is outrageous that taxpayers should have been asked to foot the bill for his “forgetfulness”.
Stephens, a former trade union organiser and avowed socialist, is part of the SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn’s frontbench team. He has represented Glasgow South West since 2015.
Records published by the Westminster authorities show that Stephens filed the claim for £129.88 on December 12 last year. The expense was described as “courier for MP’s mobile as was left in Glasgow and needed for debate tomorrow”.
Challenged by the Scottish Daily Mail, Stephens said it had always been his intention to pay the bill himself and that he had told his office staff this at the time.
“Basically, I left my mobile in the house and I couldn’t contact folk. I am paying it back,” he said. “I’m paying it back on the basis that I accept it was my fault, I left the phone so I’m paying it back.”
Asked why the claim had gone through on expenses, he said: ’”Well, it was to get something from A to B and my office arranged it, so it was as simple as that.”
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
There’s nothing here to say Braverman didn’t know what the law is, so that’s a very daft reply. Just like this lawyer in the Beckham case sure knows what the law is. You saying Nick Freeman, who calls himself Mr Loophole, doesn’t know what the law is therefore you won’t ever higher him?
But that’s just you, Tres, getting it wrong, which is pretty meaningless in the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the opposition Labour getting it wrong.
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course”
But she didn’t though. She intended to take punishment, not ask officials to get her off, she merely explored if she could keep her anonymity when taking the awareness course, challenging why there needs to be a public shame element, because for celebrities like herself the name and shame element is almost like an unnecessary double punishment, which is an interesting point to make, is it not?
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course” Labour and the opposition are getting into a mess over such a Braverman accusation, it’s plainly not true and will backfire in their faces, not least any whiff of double standards in comparison with other cases historic and future. they need cooler heads than this to be trusted with government.
I see the Bakhmut story has been clarified - Ukraine defence ministry says that Zelensky was referring to the fact that the city has been utterly destroyed and the population gone, and that the battle is maneuvering around its ruins.
It's obviously largely true. But one of the local refugees says her grandmother is holed up there, refusing to leave. She spends her days in her cellar, wrapped in blankets, surviving on what a few nearby friends are still able to pick up - like nearly all devastated cities, there are still a few places functioning. Her daughter is trying to persuade her to leave but she says it's her home, and she's not giving up. Not clear if she's pro-Ukraine or pro-Russian or (as I suspect) merely stubbornly determined not to let anyone drive her out.
There are always people who stay like that. A steady feature of the Balkan Wars. When asked, they often said that they thought if they left, their property will be given to someone else as part of a Facts on The Ground deal. Interesting eh?
IIRC there were civilians in the basement of Pavlov’s House in Stalingrad who refused to leave, when they could.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
IIRC Thatcher turned down hereditary honours precisely so that Mark wouldn’t inherit them.
Talking about shitty entitled politicians and on topic.
One of Scotland’s most left-wing MPs is under fire for using parliamentary expenses to have his phone couriered from his house to Westminster.
Chris Stephens of the SNP has promised to repay the £130 he claimed to retrieve his phone, which he had left at home, to the House of Commons. Critics have said, however, that it is outrageous that taxpayers should have been asked to foot the bill for his “forgetfulness”.
Stephens, a former trade union organiser and avowed socialist, is part of the SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn’s frontbench team. He has represented Glasgow South West since 2015.
Records published by the Westminster authorities show that Stephens filed the claim for £129.88 on December 12 last year. The expense was described as “courier for MP’s mobile as was left in Glasgow and needed for debate tomorrow”.
Challenged by the Scottish Daily Mail, Stephens said it had always been his intention to pay the bill himself and that he had told his office staff this at the time.
“Basically, I left my mobile in the house and I couldn’t contact folk. I am paying it back,” he said. “I’m paying it back on the basis that I accept it was my fault, I left the phone so I’m paying it back.”
Asked why the claim had gone through on expenses, he said: ’”Well, it was to get something from A to B and my office arranged it, so it was as simple as that.”
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5 UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
There’s nothing here to say Braverman didn’t know what the law is, so that’s a very daft reply. Just like this lawyer in the Beckham case sure knows what the law is. You saying Nick Freeman, who calls himself Mr Loophole, doesn’t know what the law is therefore you won’t ever higher him?
But that’s just you, Tres, getting it wrong, which is pretty meaningless in the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the opposition Labour getting it wrong.
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course”
But she didn’t though. She intended to take punishment, not ask officials to get her off, she merely explored if she could keep her anonymity when taking the awareness course, challenging why there needs to be a public shame element, because for celebrities like herself the name and shame element is almost like an unnecessary double punishment, which is an interesting point to make, is it not?
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course” Labour and the opposition are getting into a mess over such a Braverman accusation, it’s plainly not true and will backfire in their faces, not least any whiff of double standards in comparison with other cases historic and future. they need cooler heads than this to be trusted with government.
Talking about shitty entitled politicians and on topic.
One of Scotland’s most left-wing MPs is under fire for using parliamentary expenses to have his phone couriered from his house to Westminster.
Chris Stephens of the SNP has promised to repay the £130 he claimed to retrieve his phone, which he had left at home, to the House of Commons. Critics have said, however, that it is outrageous that taxpayers should have been asked to foot the bill for his “forgetfulness”.
Stephens, a former trade union organiser and avowed socialist, is part of the SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn’s frontbench team. He has represented Glasgow South West since 2015.
Records published by the Westminster authorities show that Stephens filed the claim for £129.88 on December 12 last year. The expense was described as “courier for MP’s mobile as was left in Glasgow and needed for debate tomorrow”.
Challenged by the Scottish Daily Mail, Stephens said it had always been his intention to pay the bill himself and that he had told his office staff this at the time.
“Basically, I left my mobile in the house and I couldn’t contact folk. I am paying it back,” he said. “I’m paying it back on the basis that I accept it was my fault, I left the phone so I’m paying it back.”
Asked why the claim had gone through on expenses, he said: ’”Well, it was to get something from A to B and my office arranged it, so it was as simple as that.”
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
IIRC Thatcher turned down hereditary honours precisely so that Mark wouldn’t inherit them.
Your recollection might be faulty. An hereditary baronetcy was created for Denis Thatcher in order that Mark would inherit it, hence Sir Mark Thatcher.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
Arnold Schwarzanneger just been on Kuenssberg followed by Therese Coffey, quite a contrast
I once met Arnold Schwarznegger in HMV London, ironically I was looking for the The Terminator Blu Ray Boxset, I was struggling to find it, and he helpfully told me it was in aisle b, back.
Your coat. Don't come back...
You're another person that doesn't appreciate my magnificent and subtle puns.
Subtle?
The subtly of @TSE’s puns is only challenged by his legendary modesty and the quietness of his apparel.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
IIRC Thatcher turned down hereditary honours precisely so that Mark wouldn’t inherit them.
But he's Sir Mark Thatcher because of the baronetcy which Dennis Thatcher was given.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5 UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
Arnold Schwarzanneger just been on Kuenssberg followed by Therese Coffey, quite a contrast
I once met Arnold Schwarznegger in HMV London, ironically I was looking for the The Terminator Blu Ray Boxset, I was struggling to find it, and he helpfully told me it was in aisle b, back.
Your coat. Don't come back...
You're another person that doesn't appreciate my magnificent and subtle puns.
Subtle?
The subtly of @TSE’s puns is only challenged by his legendary modesty and the quietness of his apparel.
Arnold Schwarzanneger just been on Kuenssberg followed by Therese Coffey, quite a contrast
I once met Arnold Schwarznegger in HMV London, ironically I was looking for the The Terminator Blu Ray Boxset, I was struggling to find it, and he helpfully told me it was in aisle b, back.
Your coat. Don't come back...
You're another person that doesn't appreciate my magnificent and subtle puns.
Subtle?
The subtly of @TSE’s puns is only challenged by his legendary modesty and the quietness of his apparel.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
I'm having some trouble following the logical contortions when it comes to education.
As far as I can tell the thrust of debate seems to be that we want to subsidise and expand private nursery education, declare war on private primary and secondary education, and fully privatise tertiary education.
Arnold Schwarzanneger just been on Kuenssberg followed by Therese Coffey, quite a contrast
I once met Arnold Schwarznegger in HMV London, ironically I was looking for the The Terminator Blu Ray Boxset, I was struggling to find it, and he helpfully told me it was in aisle b, back.
Your coat. Don't come back...
You're another person that doesn't appreciate my magnificent and subtle puns.
Subtle?
The subtly of @TSE’s puns is only challenged by his legendary modesty and the quietness of his apparel.
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5 UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
But with a big sign on the door, saying that whites are encouraged not to attend. If it were the other way around, everyone would consider it to be racist. No surprise that it’s an American import.
From the website:
While this performance has been arranged for Black audience members specifically, no one is excluded from attending.
WHAT IS A BLACK OUT? “A BLACK OUT night is the purposeful creation of an environment in which an all-Black-identifying audience can experience and discuss an event in the performing arts, film, and cultural spaces – free from the white gaze.” blackoutnite.com
Originated by Jeremy O. Harris for his play Slave Play, the very first BLACK OUT night took place on Broadway in 2019. The initiative was brought to London during the run of his show Daddy at the Almeida Theatre as he felt it was important for Black theatregoers to be able to experience sitting in a theatre space where the whole audience looks like them.
Director Matthew Xia said "Over the last few years, a number of playwrights and directors in the US and the UK have created private and safe spaces for Black theatre-goers to experience productions that explore complex, nuanced race-related issues. I felt that with a play like TAMBO & BONES which unpicks the complexity of Black performance in relation to the white gaze, it was imperative that we created such a space."
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
IIRC Thatcher turned down hereditary honours precisely so that Mark wouldn’t inherit them.
Your recollection might be faulty. An hereditary baronetcy was created for Denis Thatcher in order that Mark would inherit it, hence Sir Mark Thatcher.
Sorry - to be clear, she turned down hereditary peerage. Which is believed to be because she didn’t want Mark in the Lords.
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5 UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
I remember what Yes, Prime Minister said about the theatre: practically nobody goes to political plays, and half of those that go don't understand them, and half of those who understand them don't agree with them, and the seven who are left would have voted against the government anyway.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
Accountancy (Chartered) is not about 'adding up'. That's like saying Sam Cooke could hold a tune.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
"Thatcher wanted a Britain fit for her father, but created one safe for her son."
Alternatively, Thatcher had a theological literacy and moral core that could bear a lot of load. Given that much sense of duty, the state could safely be shrunk because the virtue of the people would compensate and then some. See also the responsibility of small town businesses.
But anonymous global corporations don't have that sense of responsibility and spivs will spiv.
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5 UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
But with a big sign on the door, saying that whites are encouraged not to attend. If it were the other way around, everyone would consider it to be racist. No surprise that it’s an American import.
From the website:
While this performance has been arranged for Black audience members specifically, no one is excluded from attending.
WHAT IS A BLACK OUT? “A BLACK OUT night is the purposeful creation of an environment in which an all-Black-identifying audience can experience and discuss an event in the performing arts, film, and cultural spaces – free from the white gaze.” blackoutnite.com
Originated by Jeremy O. Harris for his play Slave Play, the very first BLACK OUT night took place on Broadway in 2019. The initiative was brought to London during the run of his show Daddy at the Almeida Theatre as he felt it was important for Black theatregoers to be able to experience sitting in a theatre space where the whole audience looks like them.
Director Matthew Xia said "Over the last few years, a number of playwrights and directors in the US and the UK have created private and safe spaces for Black theatre-goers to experience productions that explore complex, nuanced race-related issues. I felt that with a play like TAMBO & BONES which unpicks the complexity of Black performance in relation to the white gaze, it was imperative that we created such a space."
Can you not see how perfectly natural it is for people to want people of a different skin colour to be excluded?
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5 UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
But with a big sign on the door, saying that whites are encouraged not to attend. If it were the other way around, everyone would consider it to be racist. No surprise that it’s an American import.
From the website:
While this performance has been arranged for Black audience members specifically, no one is excluded from attending.
WHAT IS A BLACK OUT? “A BLACK OUT night is the purposeful creation of an environment in which an all-Black-identifying audience can experience and discuss an event in the performing arts, film, and cultural spaces – free from the white gaze.” blackoutnite.com
Originated by Jeremy O. Harris for his play Slave Play, the very first BLACK OUT night took place on Broadway in 2019. The initiative was brought to London during the run of his show Daddy at the Almeida Theatre as he felt it was important for Black theatregoers to be able to experience sitting in a theatre space where the whole audience looks like them.
Director Matthew Xia said "Over the last few years, a number of playwrights and directors in the US and the UK have created private and safe spaces for Black theatre-goers to experience productions that explore complex, nuanced race-related issues. I felt that with a play like TAMBO & BONES which unpicks the complexity of Black performance in relation to the white gaze, it was imperative that we created such a space."
Well it is racist, but the reporting was also misleading at best, hence my post. As I said I am not a fan.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
Accountancy (Chartered) is not about 'adding up'. That's like saying Sam Cooke could hold a tune.
The number of accountants who seem to think that shuffling receipts they don’t understand around in a vague attempt to make things balance…..
When you point out where things should go, they often get startled by the numbers marching exactly.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
You don’t own a baseball bat and your wife doesn’t have a kimono?
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
"Thatcher wanted a Britain fit for her father, but created one safe for her son."
Alternatively, Thatcher had a theological literacy and moral core that could bear a lot of load. Given that much sense of duty, the state could safely be shrunk because the virtue of the people would compensate and then some. See also the responsibility of small town businesses.
But anonymous global corporations don't have that sense of responsibility and spivs will spiv.
All political philosophies have their difficulties when you try and put them into practice, but there is an unresolved, and probably unresolvable, tension, or even contradiction, in market economics between the values of:
- respect for private property, and desire to build a property-owning democracy, which inevitably leads to inherited economic privilege because of parental instincts to do the best for their children; and - meritocracy, which is supposed to start with equality of opportunity for all.
I'm in California at the moment, and America, with its much higher income and wealth inequality, glaring racial divides and lower social mobility, shows this dichotomy even more glaringly than we do.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
You don’t own a baseball bat and your wife doesn’t have a kimono?
There are bits and pieces of tax law I’m aware of supplemented, in this case, by a quick google for the correct citation. I’m assuming Joylon knows more given he’s a KC specialising in it etc. although I doubt even he has the citations in his head.
I'm having some trouble following the logical contortions when it comes to education.
As far as I can tell the thrust of debate seems to be that we want to subsidise and expand private nursery education, declare war on private primary and secondary education, and fully privatise tertiary education.
No?
Me neither.
It’s a good summary of where HMG is, but I take it the ‘no’ means you don’t like current policy?
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
"Thatcher wanted a Britain fit for her father, but created one safe for her son."
Alternatively, Thatcher had a theological literacy and moral core that could bear a lot of load. Given that much sense of duty, the state could safely be shrunk because the virtue of the people would compensate and then some. See also the responsibility of small town businesses.
But anonymous global corporations don't have that sense of responsibility and spivs will spiv.
All political philosophies have their difficulties when you try and put them into practice, but there is an unresolved, and probably unresolvable, tension, or even contradiction, in market economics between the values of:
- respect for private property, and desire to build a property-owning democracy, which inevitably leads to inherited economic privilege because of parental instincts to do the best for their children; and - meritocracy, which is supposed to start with equality of opportunity for all.
I'm in California at the moment, and America, with its much higher income and wealth inequality, glaring racial divides and lower social mobility, shows this dichotomy even more glaringly than we do.
There are some curious views on meritocracy on here. It gets written off as we can't reach equality of opportunity for all (at least not in any half way sensible manner).
But that spectacularly misses the point, the role of governments on meritocracy should be to make things far more meritocratic than it would otherwise be without government intervention not to get to perfect meritocracy at the expense of everything else.
Going backwards on meritocracy and going backwards on productivity (relatively) are closely linked.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
You don’t own a baseball bat and your wife doesn’t have a kimono?
There are bits and pieces of tax law I’m aware of supplemented, in this case, by a I’m assuming Joylon knows more given he’s a KC specialising in it etc.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
Yes, I do. I have the evidence of the person who made the allegation, reported in the papers. That’s evidence. Whether it’s strong or weak evidence is up to a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, largely based on whether that person(s) agreed to testify personally to it or it becomes hearsay evidence. Either way it’s still evidence.
Re last thread Sunak's live press conference just now from Hiroshima ducks questions on Braverman
When he returns to London time for him to take action on the terrible Braverman who is doing him no favours
On topic
I think the SNP and in particular independence are in great peril and anything could happen
Morning Big G. It's quiet here this morning, so why don't we chat amongst ourselves.
To be honest I don't see there's all that much in this Braverman thing. She got done, as most of us do from time to time, and was embarrassed at the thought of appearing alongside the great unwashed at one of those courses with which I personally am very familiar. She tried to see if she could wriggle out of it, it didn't work: she tried to use a bit of 'fluence and that didn't work either, so she took the points and paid the fine.
It's no big deal but I think she missed a trick. If she had gone on the course she could have made a virtue of it, telling everyone what a good thing they are (which is true) and how it's helped make her a better driver, better understanding of the issues, blah blah blah. It would have been good publicity, and helped her popularity with that important voter - the oppressed motorist.
Instead she's managed to make herself look a bit sneaky, again. It's not a resigning issue, in my opinion, but it ain't a great look either. Whatever Labour may say publicly, privately they will be anxious that she remains in Office. She's a great asset to them.
On the SNP, agree absolutely. The ony question is how low do the SNP go. My guess is 20 seats. Any other offers?
On Braverman that’s pretty much my assessment as well
I'm having some trouble following the logical contortions when it comes to education.
As far as I can tell the thrust of debate seems to be that we want to subsidise and expand private nursery education, declare war on private primary and secondary education, and fully privatise tertiary education.
No?
Me neither.
Nursery education isn’t really about education; it’s about freeing up parents to be able to work.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
Accountancy (Chartered) is not about 'adding up'. That's like saying Sam Cooke could hold a tune.
The number of accountants who seem to think that shuffling receipts they don’t understand around in a vague attempt to make things balance…..
When you point out where things should go, they often get startled by the numbers marching exactly.
The problem is surely that when accountants get numbers to March, they don’t understand they should just be left, right?
There seems to be this idea that because Johnson could get away with stuff now every Government minster can. Number one, that is a terrible excuse. Number two, it is nonsense. See: Dominic Raab
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
As a solicitor I instruct barristers all the time. The first, sometimes the only, thing I look for is an understanding of the law. Hopefully greater than my own. Which is completely lacking in her case. There’s no point in having an aggressive lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, with no basic legal comprehension.
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
I refer the Doug to the answer I gave some moments ago. You have zero evidence Suella didn’t understand the law in this case, it’s an untrue statement born from political malice and mischief, and you have even committed libel posting that untrue statement born from political malice and mischief. Where is your evidence she didn’t understand the law?
There is an allegation that she asked whether she could claim speeding fines as an expense. If that allegation is substantiated that shows sue doesn’t understand the law. The relevant law being stated in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs TC05015 [2016] UKFTT 0239 where the First Tier Tribunal restated the long standing assertion that fines for breaking the law cannot be used to reduce a tax bill, which expenses would do.
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
You don’t own a baseball bat and your wife doesn’t have a kimono?
There are bits and pieces of tax law I’m aware of supplemented, in this case, by a quick google for the correct citation. I’m assuming Joylon knows more given he’s a KC specialising in it etc. although I doubt even he has the citations in his head.
Why would he have them in his head, when he can charge a couple of hours for looking them up?
The (very) silly feature of the Braverman debacle is that had she attended a speeding course it would have demonstrated a commitment to equality before the law, and a break with Boris-ism. Now it just seems as though she (especially) believes she shouldn’t be treated the same as “ordinary” folk.
Braverman and Mogg are useful to Sunak as the face of National Conservatism, precisely because they are useless.
Except Braverman is popular with grassroots now, but wasn't 6 months ago. They do not appear to be associating her with failure, but blaming Rishi. If she goes, she will find a ready audience if she blames him too.
But she isn’t even that popular with the grassroots
She rates highly in ConHome league tables. By grassroots I actually meant party members.
And if says she was ousted because Sunak wouldn't let her be tougher on migration see her popularity there explode further.
Not that highly. Braverman is only 7th in the latest Conhome table on +47.3% even behind Rishi on +47.4%.
On Braverman, I don't in general feel that politicians or anyone else should be condemned for asking a question. If always struck me as unfair that Ruth Kelly was condemned for asking whether having her artex ceiling replaced was an allowable expense (they said no, so she didn't try to claim) - probably a silly question, but shouldn't be a sin to ask.
That said, this is the sort of story that cuts through because it feeds the (probably largely unjustified) public view that politicians, especially Conservatives, are only out for themselves. Minsters should be leaning over backwards not to do or say anything that feeds that narrative.
Norman Tebbit in his prime would have been quite happy as a National Conservative Trumpian.
Arguably this is just part of reheated Thatcherism, but critically with the economic and work ethic part of Thatcherism written out. Compared to Thatcherism , National Conservatism is dumb, economically illiterate and lazy.
Thatcherism is/was 90% economic and work ethic.
I don't think anyone can deny that Thatcher believed in hard work and self improvement and followed those attributes herself.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
Not sure that has anything to do with Thatcherism.
It isn't, which is the point.
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
I'm not here to defend Thatcherism or its sustainability, there are parts I like but on balance I'm not a fan. Just pointing out that saying this lot are Thatcherism without the economics and work ethic makes no sense, as Thatcherism is essentially a particular flavour of economics backed by work ethic.
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
"Thatcher wanted a Britain fit for her father, but created one safe for her son."
Alternatively, Thatcher had a theological literacy and moral core that could bear a lot of load. Given that much sense of duty, the state could safely be shrunk because the virtue of the people would compensate and then some. See also the responsibility of small town businesses.
But anonymous global corporations don't have that sense of responsibility and spivs will spiv.
All political philosophies have their difficulties when you try and put them into practice, but there is an unresolved, and probably unresolvable, tension, or even contradiction, in market economics between the values of:
- respect for private property, and desire to build a property-owning democracy, which inevitably leads to inherited economic privilege because of parental instincts to do the best for their children; and - meritocracy, which is supposed to start with equality of opportunity for all.
I'm in California at the moment, and America, with its much higher income and wealth inequality, glaring racial divides and lower social mobility, shows this dichotomy even more glaringly than we do.
There are some curious views on meritocracy on here. It gets written off as we can't reach equality of opportunity for all (at least not in any half way sensible manner).
But that spectacularly misses the point, the role of governments on meritocracy should be to make things far more meritocratic than it would otherwise be without government intervention not to get to perfect meritocracy at the expense of everything else.
Going backwards on meritocracy and going backwards on productivity (relatively) are closely linked.
Someone made a rather good point the other day -
The remorseless removal of actual experts in various fields from the higher parts of government. And they’re replacement with comfortable generalists who are, to use the old expression - “clubbable”.
By their nature such people are found on a basis of who you know, rather than genuine meritocracy.
My favourites of this genre were the binning of the Gold unit at the Bank of England and the wholesale sacking of the team purchasing smaller ammunition for the British Army.
On Braverman, I don't in general feel that politicians or anyone else should be condemned for asking a question. If always struck me as unfair that Ruth Kelly was condemned for asking whether having her artex ceiling replaced was an allowable expense (they said no, so she didn't try to claim) - probably a silly question, but shouldn't be a sin to ask.
That said, this is the sort of story that cuts through because it feeds the (probably largely unjustified) public view that politicians, especially Conservatives, are only out for themselves. Minsters should be leaning over backwards not to do or say anything that feeds that narrative.
On a side note - you need to be careful with old artex ceilings. The really old ones can have asbestos in them.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
There’s nothing here to say Braverman didn’t know what the law is, so that’s a very daft reply. Just like this lawyer in the Beckham case sure knows what the law is. You saying Nick Freeman, who calls himself Mr Loophole, doesn’t know what the law is therefore you won’t ever higher him?
But that’s just you, Tres, getting it wrong, which is pretty meaningless in the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the opposition Labour getting it wrong.
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course”
But she didn’t though. She intended to take punishment, not ask officials to get her off, she merely explored if she could keep her anonymity when taking the awareness course, challenging why there needs to be a public shame element, because for celebrities like herself the name and shame element is almost like an unnecessary double punishment, which is an interesting point to make, is it not?
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course” Labour and the opposition are getting into a mess over such a Braverman accusation, it’s plainly not true and will backfire in their faces, not least any whiff of double standards in comparison with other cases historic and future. they need cooler heads than this to be trusted with government.
She should have gone direct to 'Mr Loophole'. It would have killed her career but at least she wouldn't have points on her license.
This is happening too often. She doesn't understand the ministerial code* and isn't prepared to learn. She needs to go.
*Of course it isn't clear if she broke the ministerial code because civil servants may have refused to let her.
She may have been saved because civil servants pushed back against the Minister's desire, just the sort of thing she probably rails against.
(Yes, I know the complaint is usually about civil servants obstructing policy ministers want, but it cuts both ways - if the culture is to let them raise issues with things in order to deliver better, then you may save yourself from a personal error; if you push the 'you should do exactly as I say' approach, you won't find advice coming unprompted to not put your foot in it)
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this?
No.
Yeah me neither. The facts alone are enough.
Odd that most of the mitigations I’ve seen are ‘other people have done worse things’; IANAL but suspect that is not a watertight defence.
It's so obvious that the civil servants were right in saying that it was improper for her to ask them to make special arrangements for her. Unless she was trying to exploit her position to get favourable treatment, she should simply have followed the same channels that were available to anyone in the same position.
Instead - according to her own "sources close" we have an appeal to the Cabinet Office on her part. How many f**** ordinary people have an appeal to the Cabinet Office open to them, when they're convicted of a crime?
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
There’s nothing here to say Braverman didn’t know what the law is, so that’s a very daft reply. Just like this lawyer in the Beckham case sure knows what the law is. You saying Nick Freeman, who calls himself Mr Loophole, doesn’t know what the law is therefore you won’t ever higher him?
But that’s just you, Tres, getting it wrong, which is pretty meaningless in the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the opposition Labour getting it wrong.
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course”
But she didn’t though. She intended to take punishment, not ask officials to get her off, she merely explored if she could keep her anonymity when taking the awareness course, challenging why there needs to be a public shame element, because for celebrities like herself the name and shame element is almost like an unnecessary double punishment, which is an interesting point to make, is it not?
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course” Labour and the opposition are getting into a mess over such a Braverman accusation, it’s plainly not true and will backfire in their faces, not least any whiff of double standards in comparison with other cases historic and future. they need cooler heads than this to be trusted with government.
She should have gone direct to 'Mr Loophole'. It would have killed her career but at least she wouldn't have points on her license.
Mr Loophole’s “magic” consists largely, IIRC, of asking when the police last calibrated their speed gun.
A huge number of times, it turns out they had not followed the manufacturers instructions on calibration and maintenance. So the speed gun evidence was thrown out.
That the police turned this into someone else’s problem just shows the childish, petulant nature of senior police officers.
There seems to be this idea that because Johnson could get away with stuff now every Government minster can. Number one, that is a terrible excuse. Number two, it is nonsense. See: Dominic Raab
It's a bit of worrying trend all over. There's a school of thought which on its face sounds reasonable about how politicians should be confronted politically, and I think many of us have sympathy with patently political judicial revews which have no legal merit, or trivial complaints about rudeness, but it then drifts into how minor breaches of rules or procedures or standards of behaviour should not matter because they are elected, and eventually that leads all the way to arguments that even committing actual crimes should not be pursued because that's using the courts to take down an opponent (the most extreme is Trump, but it's not even only his supporters who make that claim).
NEW: Sources close to Home Secretary suggest that she had simply asked officials for advice on how to arrange a driving awareness course.
This is understood to have included raising the possibility of a private one-to-one course (but not directing them to arrange one)...
Then she is a fucking moron.
That's no bar to high office of course.
If that is precisely what she did, then she'll survive. It's dumb, and weird to have even asked, and looks entitled (because it is), but stays the right side of the line.
If that 'source' (just respond yourself, Minister, that's obviously where it came from) is wrong, now she is screwed.
On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story). 2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
I want a lawyer who understands the law I want a structural engineer who understand Newton I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
I know you accept it isn't black and white, but this really just doesn't work as an opinion poll as the two categories encompass too broad a range of possibilities.
How much do I disagree with person A? There is a world of difference between a technocratic democratic socialist (say) and a Nazi. A competent Nazi is in many ways more terrifying that an incompetent one.
In what sense is person B incompetent? Again, there is a huge difference between someone who bungles the odd TV appearance and dithers over a sacking or two, and one who simply can't get policies through (hence making their ideological alignment with me pretty irrelevant as they're getting none of it done).
Comments
*Of course it isn't clear if she broke the ministerial code because civil servants may have refused to let her.
It would also disadvantage U.K. based companies by making staff (in effect) more expensive - they would have to pay them more to take home the same. So the incentive would be to employee people overseas.
I would add that the major employee subject to such wage pressures would be of course, the government.
1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
2. Last night's story.
Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?
And aspiration requires affordable housing.
They've also forgotten about the work ethic.
And think that the way to get rich is by receiving vast money for vague services based on who you know.
That might work for politicians and their dubious friends but it doesn't for voters.
Trying to get special treatment is dangerous.
Getting special treatment is disastrous.
I therefore suggest trials without a jury. And without judges.
Given the past success in introducing changes in taxation in Scotland first, let’s try it there.
Some maths grads are paid shedloads, but others (teachers, say) aren't. If you personalise the liability, and stop it being income-contingent, a lot of graduates in the public sector are going to become a lot more expensive.
The other missing link is widening non-university routes into careers. Which I think we are slowly (too slowly) doing.
One of Scotland’s most left-wing MPs is under fire for using parliamentary expenses to have his phone couriered from his house to Westminster.
Chris Stephens of the SNP has promised to repay the £130 he claimed to retrieve his phone, which he had left at home, to the House of Commons. Critics have said, however, that it is outrageous that taxpayers should have been asked to foot the bill for his “forgetfulness”.
Stephens, a former trade union organiser and avowed socialist, is part of the SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn’s frontbench team. He has represented Glasgow South West since 2015.
Records published by the Westminster authorities show that Stephens filed the claim for £129.88 on December 12 last year. The expense was described as “courier for MP’s mobile as was left in Glasgow and needed for debate tomorrow”.
Challenged by the Scottish Daily Mail, Stephens said it had always been his intention to pay the bill himself and that he had told his office staff this at the time.
“Basically, I left my mobile in the house and I couldn’t contact folk. I am paying it back,” he said. “I’m paying it back on the basis that I accept it was my fault, I left the phone so I’m paying it back.”
Asked why the claim had gone through on expenses, he said: ’”Well, it was to get something from A to B and my office arranged it, so it was as simple as that.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-charged-130-for-snp-mps-forgotten-phone-xk737wxg2
That does rely on our judgement of what we have too fee of being correct, of course.
But ...
... there's her indulgence towards her dreadful, parasitical son.
1) while they are working all interest payments are handled via the employer. It’s no longer your problem. Relax.
2) the repayment of principle is handled on an escalating basis - first year small, last year 1/3rd of the total loan.
7 years because you get a reasonable return. At the end of 7 years, most people will be quite set in their profession as well.
2015, 24% = 1 seat. Very different result under PR. Under FPTP, voters across a country wanting to make a point know exactly what to do in every constituency.
Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
Mark Thatcher did not embody Thatcherite values.
Which makes me wonder how sustainable Thatcherism is if the hard work and self-improvement of one generation can be replaced by the self-indulgence and parasitical privilege in the next.
How long does it take before those with the wealth and power actually actively oppose aspiration and meritocracy in order to protect their own inherited privilege ?
Unless, of course, this is satire along the lines of my stupid Liz Truss schtick, in which case I offer the Board profound apologies.
https://www.blasermills.co.uk/insights/article/beckham-avoids-speeding-conviction-but-how-did-he-do-it/#:~:text=Therefore, when the former Man,accepted driving and accepted speeding.
The very opposite of your post is the truth here.
But that’s just you, Tres, getting it wrong, which is pretty meaningless in the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the opposition Labour getting it wrong.
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course”
But she didn’t though. She intended to take punishment, not ask officials to get her off, she merely explored if she could keep her anonymity when taking the awareness course, challenging why there needs to be a public shame element, because for celebrities like herself the name and shame element is almost like an unnecessary double punishment, which is an interesting point to make, is it not?
“Home Secretary Suella Braverman is accused of asking civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and a driving awareness course”
Labour and the opposition are getting into a mess over such a Braverman accusation, it’s plainly not true and will backfire in their faces, not least any whiff of double standards in comparison with other cases historic and future. they need cooler heads than this to be trusted with government.
IIRC there were civilians in the basement of Pavlov’s House in Stalingrad who refused to leave, when they could.
https://tinyurl.com/32bx66ye
"Theatre show with 'all-black audience' that aims to explore race-related issues 'free from the white gaze' is accused of setting a 'dangerous precedent'
Theatre Royal Stratford East are hosting a Black Out for Tambo & Bones on July 5
UK's first black police and crime commissioner condemned the planned event"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12107007/Theatre-accused-setting-dangerous-precedent-promoting-black-audience.html
I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.
There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
Thatcher would have no time at all for the majority of the many cabinet ministers since the GE.
https://www.stratfordeast.com/whats-on/all-shows/tambo-and-bones#BookingDetails
"Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?
A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.
B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."
(And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
As far as I can tell the thrust of debate seems to be that we want to subsidise and expand private nursery education, declare war on private primary and secondary education, and fully privatise tertiary education.
No?
Me neither.
From the website:
While this performance has been arranged for Black audience members specifically, no one is excluded from attending.
WHAT IS A BLACK OUT?
“A BLACK OUT night is the purposeful creation of an environment in which an all-Black-identifying audience can experience and discuss an event in the performing arts, film, and cultural spaces – free from the white gaze.” blackoutnite.com
Originated by Jeremy O. Harris for his play Slave Play, the very first BLACK OUT night took place on Broadway in 2019. The initiative was brought to London during the run of his show Daddy at the Almeida Theatre as he felt it was important for Black theatregoers to be able to experience sitting in a theatre space where the whole audience looks like them.
Director Matthew Xia said "Over the last few years, a number of playwrights and directors in the US and the UK have created private and safe spaces for Black theatre-goers to experience productions that explore complex, nuanced race-related issues. I felt that with a play like TAMBO & BONES which unpicks the complexity of Black performance in relation to the white gaze, it was imperative that we created such a space."
As such it has clearly been a resounding success.
I remember what Yes, Prime Minister said about the theatre: practically nobody goes to political plays, and half of those that go don't understand them, and half of those who understand them don't agree with them, and the seven who are left would have voted against the government anyway.
Alternatively, Thatcher had a theological literacy and moral core that could bear a lot of load. Given that much sense of duty, the state could safely be shrunk because the virtue of the people would compensate and then some. See also the responsibility of small town businesses.
But anonymous global corporations don't have that sense of responsibility and spivs will spiv.
Should have gone with the lettuce...
And if criticising a lawyer’s understanding of the law were in and of itself defamatory I’d be very very rich indeed.
When you point out where things should go, they often get startled by the numbers marching exactly.
- respect for private property, and desire to build a property-owning democracy, which inevitably leads to inherited economic privilege because of parental instincts to do the best for their children; and
- meritocracy, which is supposed to start with equality of opportunity for all.
I'm in California at the moment, and America, with its much higher income and wealth inequality, glaring racial divides and lower social mobility, shows this dichotomy even more glaringly than we do.
Odd that most of the mitigations I’ve seen are ‘other people have done worse things’; IANAL but suspect that is not a watertight defence.
But that spectacularly misses the point, the role of governments on meritocracy should be to make things far more meritocratic than it would otherwise be without government intervention not to get to perfect meritocracy at the expense of everything else.
Going backwards on meritocracy and going backwards on productivity (relatively) are closely linked.
Steve Barclay and Penny Mordaunt beat her on +49.5% each, as does Cleverly on 55.1% and Badenoch on +60.4%. Ben Wallace tops the table on +83.4%
https://conservativehome.com/2023/05/03/our-cabinet-league-table-ben-wallace-is-top-again-as-he-has-been-now-for-almost-a-year-and-a-half/
That said, this is the sort of story that cuts through because it feeds the (probably largely unjustified) public view that politicians, especially Conservatives, are only out for themselves. Minsters should be leaning over backwards not to do or say anything that feeds that narrative.
The remorseless removal of actual experts in various fields from the higher parts of government. And they’re replacement with comfortable generalists who are, to use the old expression - “clubbable”.
By their nature such people are found on a basis of who you know, rather than genuine meritocracy.
My favourites of this genre were the binning of the Gold unit at the Bank of England and the wholesale sacking of the team purchasing smaller ammunition for the British Army.
NEW: Sources close to Home Secretary suggest that she had simply asked officials for advice on how to arrange a driving awareness course.
This is understood to have included raising the possibility of a private one-to-one course (but not directing them to arrange one)...
Then she is a fucking moron.
(Yes, I know the complaint is usually about civil servants obstructing policy ministers want, but it cuts both ways - if the culture is to let them raise issues with things in order to deliver better, then you may save yourself from a personal error; if you push the 'you should do exactly as I say' approach, you won't find advice coming unprompted to not put your foot in it)
Instead - according to her own "sources close" we have an appeal to the Cabinet Office on her part. How many f**** ordinary people have an appeal to the Cabinet Office open to them, when they're convicted of a crime?
"Are we justified in encouraging Ukraine to fight until they've overrun places like this?"
A huge number of times, it turns out they had not followed the manufacturers instructions on calibration and maintenance. So the speed gun evidence was thrown out.
That the police turned this into someone else’s problem just shows the childish, petulant nature of senior police officers.
Why did she appeal to the Cabinet Office after "asking the question", do you think?
If that is precisely what she did, then she'll survive. It's dumb, and weird to have even asked, and looks entitled (because it is), but stays the right side of the line.
If that 'source' (just respond yourself, Minister, that's obviously where it came from) is wrong, now she is screwed.
How much do I disagree with person A? There is a world of difference between a technocratic democratic socialist (say) and a Nazi. A competent Nazi is in many ways more terrifying that an incompetent one.
In what sense is person B incompetent? Again, there is a huge difference between someone who bungles the odd TV appearance and dithers over a sacking or two, and one who simply can't get policies through (hence making their ideological alignment with me pretty irrelevant as they're getting none of it done).