This does point to an obvious solution - Braverman resigns to 'take responsibility', then is reappointed the next week. Given it's already been established that you can take responsibility so quickly. Looking forward to how Rishi Sunak explains why Suella Braverman has to resign from her job for breaking the ministerial code, after having previously appointed her to that same job, just days after being found to have broken the ministerial code. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1660228173307555840
Perhaps Sunak could arrange a jobshare between Suella and Priti Patel? That way each of them could break the ministerial code twice a month and emerge without a stain on their records.
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Grid ?
The National Government during WWII seemed to do a moderately good job.
The National Trust, on the other hand…
Churchill wrote in his war memoirs that this country never had such a good government as the National Government, and would probably never have such good government again. Looking back, it is remarkable how non-ideological it was. It really does seem that talent and ability to do the job were the only criteria that mattered.
That’s what a common national enemy does for domestic politics.
Ask the Ukranians.
When facing an existential threat, one can’t be stupid and selfish.
Stupidity and selfishness are peacetime luxuries.
Yes, I think that's why we can't expect the same high standards of peacetime governments. Absent an existential threat, the usual stupidities and selfishness are unavoidable.
As others here have noted, Ukraine is providing a striking example illustration of the principle.
In Ukraine's case, interestingly, it's the same people. Zelenskyy was particularly beholden to oligarchs with malign intentions.
My brother voted Brexit, thinking it wouldn’t win and just wanting to make a protest vote. Since he runs a restaurant previously staffed with EU nationals and reliant on importing various food and wine from the EU, the gaping wound in his left foot from his own gun is entirely just desserts…
This does point to an obvious solution - Braverman resigns to 'take responsibility', then is reappointed the next week. Given it's already been established that you can take responsibility so quickly. Looking forward to how Rishi Sunak explains why Suella Braverman has to resign from her job for breaking the ministerial code, after having previously appointed her to that same job, just days after being found to have broken the ministerial code. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1660228173307555840
We need a politics where it's far less about the politicians.
Boris is clearly the principal example of this. He did just the one thing, Brexit (admittedly important) and then it was just about him. Corbyn was just about Corbyn. Trump is about fantasy Trump.
Even the politicians that you'd hope might do better, don't. Ed Davey.. he's hopeless mainly because he thinks of himself first. Rory Stewart - just an autobiography in progress.
Speaking of which, there's an interesting debate on immigration and Brexit here with Fraser Nelson and Nigel Farage, who hints at a political comeback.
The BBC gushes "It is worth remembering how great Schofield and Willoughby were together before their relationship went off the rails."
It was ever the way. You don't know what you've got till it's gone,
It was the same with Gordon the Gopher. He and Schofield had amazing chemistry at the start but, by the end, I think the mutual lack of respect came across to viewers.
Ultimately, I stopped watching the phony charade entirely. This was around about the same time as I was doing my GCSEs, funnily enough.
Possibly they voted Leave in the hope that Leave would lose, but be close enough to winning to give the Brussels elites a well deserved kick up their colossal fat arses and jerk them out of their complacency.
I seriously considered whether it was worth voting leave for that reason, but I decided the losses involved in what I thought was the unlikely event of Leave winning were too great for emotional gestures.
It turns out that even the UK leaving the EU wasn't enough to bring them to some form of sanity anyway, which would have made such a gesture pointless.
My brother voted Brexit, thinking it wouldn’t win and just wanting to make a protest vote. Since he runs a restaurant previously staffed with EU nationals and reliant on importing various food and wine from the EU, the gaping wound in his left foot from his own gun is entirely just desserts…
The genius (if that is the word) of Dominic Cummings was to recruit habitual non-voters and protest voters for whom Brexit was about "taking back control" and "levelling up".
It's a pretty poorly phrased question as "failure" is undefined. It could mean making us all worse off (in which case I agree it's odd to have voted for it) but could instead mean failure to live up to the lavish promises made on the side of buses etc (in which case it's not so unreasonable as a response).
Speaking of which, there's an interesting debate on immigration and Brexit here with Fraser Nelson and Nigel Farage, who hints at a political comeback.
The reality is that Sunak doesn’t actually believe in stopping the boats.
The man is totally bankrupt ideologically and totally out of ideas.
I am struggling to understand what Sunak actually does believe in. He clearly doesn't want to sort out the housing crisis, or the leasehold problem. He doesn't appear to stand for lower taxes, or deregulation. He seems quite keen on collecting more taxes via fiscal drag, a "do nothing" policy if there ever was one.
There is no plan to fix the broken NHS, or champion improvements to the education system. He doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about the people suffering from the effects of inflation, or who can't afford their energy bills.
In fact other than allowing pharmacists to dispense certain medications, I'm struggling to think of a single headline policy you could point at and say "yep, that's Sunakism".
All the man seems to stand for is managerialism and managed decline, a "steady as she goes" approach with his hand on the tiller, blissfully unaware that HMS Great Britain is sinking faster than the Titanic.
The way out of 'managed decline' is for more work / more effective work / more productive work.
And more saving and investment funded by less consumption.
With self improvement instead of self indulgence.
All of which is a bit hard and while the government can help and encourage in some things there are no magic wands.
And the underlying problem is that few people want to do any of that. Especially politicians.
Instead what we want is another handout, another subsidy, another tax cut, another pay rise and for everything to be made more comfortable and easy.
I'm more and more of the opinion that the housing market is the biggest drag on UK productivity. It sucks money out of the economy, with younger people spending more and more of their incomes on mortgage payments or rent. It encourages people to invest in non productive assets over productive ones, imagine if all the money that went into buy to lets over the last two decades went into raising capital for new/expanding businesses instead. It reduces mobility, both in the real sense and the social that it prices many people out of parts of the country where the highest paying jobs are.
I don't think it's an accident that home ownership in Germany is lower, price of a roof over your head is lower, and productivity is higher than over here in the UK. Fixing the UK's broken housing market would go a long way towards improving productivity. But nobody wants to do that, because it means lower house prices for pensioners and the mortgage free who are all sitting on theoretical six or seven figure gains they can't cash in on anyway because they still need a roof over their heads.
Is it all about people, as you say, wanting tax cut followed by handout followed by subsidy followed by pay rise? Perhaps there is an element of that. But there is also the elephant in the room that an increasing number of working age people are paying 50% or more of their incomes to live in substandard accommodation, sucking all the disposable income out of the economy and encouraging rent seeking over more productive uses of capital.
Speaking of which, there's an interesting debate on immigration and Brexit here with Fraser Nelson and Nigel Farage, who hints at a political comeback.
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.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund 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
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.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Tyres National Trust National Gallery National Theatre National Careers Service National Church Institutions National Churches Trust National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children National Film and Television School National Union of Students National Institute for Clinical Excellence National Institute for Health and Care Research
The reality is that Sunak doesn’t actually believe in stopping the boats.
The man is totally bankrupt ideologically and totally out of ideas.
I am struggling to understand what Sunak actually does believe in. He clearly doesn't want to sort out the housing crisis, or the leasehold problem. He doesn't appear to stand for lower taxes, or deregulation. He seems quite keen on collecting more taxes via fiscal drag, a "do nothing" policy if there ever was one.
There is no plan to fix the broken NHS, or champion improvements to the education system. He doesn't seem to have a clue what to do about the people suffering from the effects of inflation, or who can't afford their energy bills.
In fact other than allowing pharmacists to dispense certain medications, I'm struggling to think of a single headline policy you could point at and say "yep, that's Sunakism".
All the man seems to stand for is managerialism and managed decline, a "steady as she goes" approach with his hand on the tiller, blissfully unaware that HMS Great Britain is sinking faster than the Titanic.
The way out of 'managed decline' is for more work / more effective work / more productive work.
And more saving and investment funded by less consumption.
With self improvement instead of self indulgence.
All of which is a bit hard and while the government can help and encourage in some things there are no magic wands.
And the underlying problem is that few people want to do any of that. Especially politicians.
Instead what we want is another handout, another subsidy, another tax cut, another pay rise and for everything to be made more comfortable and easy.
I'm more and more of the opinion that the housing market is the biggest drag on UK productivity. It sucks money out of the economy, with younger people spending more and more of their incomes on mortgage payments or rent. It encourages people to invest in non productive assets over productive ones, imagine if all the money that went into buy to lets over the last two decades went into raising capital for new/expanding businesses instead. It reduces mobility, both in the real sense and the social that it prices many people out of parts of the country where the highest paying jobs are.
This theory also fits the timing of the decline in productivity growth since 2008.
During the previous decade, the problem was taking hold, but was masked by an unsustainable financial boom. In trying to avoid a genuine reset of the system through a crash in asset prices we've turned an acute crisis into a chronic disease.
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.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.
Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
God you're a miserable git
God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"
The last time a group put National on the front of it, it didn't go so well. Surely this time it will be different
National Tyres National Trust National Gallery National Theatre National Careers Service National Church Institutions National Churches Trust National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children National Film and Television School National Union of Students National Institute for Clinical Excellence National Institute for Health and Care Research
Speaking of which, there's an interesting debate on immigration and Brexit here with Fraser Nelson and Nigel Farage, who hints at a political comeback.
Farage presents a view here that we don't hear at all on PB.
I agree worth watching on a subject that doesn't get discussed in this way on serious forums such as PB.
Farage is clearly a charlatan of the highest order - Nelson can barely hide his disgust - but he articulates very well a situation that concerns lots of people.
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.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Aren't you in some ways there referring to pragmatism, which you could argue is an ideology in itself? To do a disservice to the philosopher, William James, I'd see it as essentially see it as experimentation guided by principle but where the proof of what is right is in practical effect.
In that sense, I think you're looking for someone competent who shares your ideology, which of course we all are.
The problem is we all probably have some kind of hierarchy of ideology between benign and demonic. It's rather crucial, in judging if you are attracted by the competent ideologue, where on that scale they are. The last thing you want is someone competently carrying out evil.
Not quite. Least I don't think so. I'm saying if your leaders are able and honest and compassionate - the holy trinity - you can't go far wrong regardless of their ideology. And I'll develop this now by saying 2 out of 3 is ok so long as those 2 are able and compassionate. This addresses your point - since compassionate people never knowingly do evil and if they're also highly able they won't do it unwittingly either.
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.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
Aren't you in some ways there referring to pragmatism, which you could argue is an ideology in itself? To do a disservice to the philosopher, William James, I'd see it as essentially see it as experimentation guided by principle but where the proof of what is right is in practical effect.
In that sense, I think you're looking for someone competent who shares your ideology, which of course we all are.
The problem is we all probably have some kind of hierarchy of ideology between benign and demonic. It's rather crucial, in judging if you are attracted by the competent ideologue, where on that scale they are. The last thing you want is someone competently carrying out evil.
Yes, men like Heydrich or Beria were very competent at doing evil.
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.)
It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.
The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.
When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.
So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
The factor that makes this even more important is that no ideology works well for all different scenarios. The overly ideological tend to be obsessed with the ideologies that were popular in their childhood but may have little relevance to the next decade or two.
Yes that's a good point. I distrust ideologies if offered as 'the way'. The world is too complex to be explained by any particular idea or theory. All you should do with ideologies imo is filter for insights that are useful or interesting. Marxism, Libertarianism, Laissez Faire, (shock horror) Woke, whatever, same thing applies.
But I also distrust the often lauded 'evidence based' approach. Because you need values to frame and drive your politics. Without this even if you're a good apple you can end up in the deadend of 'whatever works' - essentially a pretence that there's some objectively verifiable best course of action that delivers optimal outcomes. Politics as a sort of bloodless science.
That's going too far the other way for me. Risks the government losing touch with the people. "Don't you worry your little heads, we know what we're doing, just let us get on with it". But still, I'd rather that sterile technocratic elitism than Boris Johnson type ghastliness. No contest in fact.
Moderation in all things. Including moderation in moderation, meaning you can be radical sometimes!
But one mustn't triangulate oneself out of the room entirely. Otherwise one ends up like the late Queen or Huw Edwards. Impossible to decipher.
Ok, completely off topic and I have to go and teach in a minute, but:
I'm pondering whether to buy a new desk chair. My current one isn't very good and is getting rather tatty. If I buy one, I'd like it to be a decent one rather than the bargain basement ones I've bought from Staples in the past (well, obviously I won't be buying from them now anyway)!
Anyone got any recommendations for something really good? I'm willing to splash out a bit within reason because after the year I've had I feel I've earned the right to pamper myself a bit.
Ok, completely off topic and I have to go and teach in a minute, but:
I'm pondering whether to buy a new desk chair. My current one isn't very good and is getting rather tatty. If I buy one, I'd like it to be a decent one rather than the bargain basement ones I've bought from Staples in the past (well, obviously I won't be buying from them now anyway)!
Anyone got any recommendations for something really good? I'm willing to splash out a bit within reason because after the year I've had I feel I've earned the right to pamper myself a bit.
As an aside I was surprised to find that the inventor of the swivel office chair was a certain C.Darwin
On the subject asked however I recommend a gaming chair
Ok, completely off topic and I have to go and teach in a minute, but:
I'm pondering whether to buy a new desk chair. My current one isn't very good and is getting rather tatty. If I buy one, I'd like it to be a decent one rather than the bargain basement ones I've bought from Staples in the past (well, obviously I won't be buying from them now anyway)!
Anyone got any recommendations for something really good? I'm willing to splash out a bit within reason because after the year I've had I feel I've earned the right to pamper myself a bit.
As an aside I was surprised to find that the inventor of the swivel office chair was a certain C.Darwin
On the subject asked however I recommend a gaming chair
Personally, I would look around for a second hand aeron chair.
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.”
Comments
https://twitter.com/TomHCalver/status/1660211203182829572
My brother voted Brexit, thinking it wouldn’t win and just wanting to make a protest vote. Since he runs a restaurant previously staffed with EU nationals and reliant on importing various food and wine from the EU, the gaping wound in his left foot from his own gun is entirely just desserts…
It was ever the way. You don't know what you've got till it's gone,
Boris is clearly the principal example of this. He did just the one thing, Brexit (admittedly important) and then it was just about him. Corbyn was just about Corbyn. Trump is about fantasy Trump.
Even the politicians that you'd hope might do better, don't. Ed Davey.. he's hopeless mainly because he thinks of himself first. Rory Stewart - just an autobiography in progress.
Help!
https://twitter.com/BritishComedy/status/1659507855907487744
https://youtu.be/JYMO96UFAiI
Farage presents a view here that we don't hear at all on PB.
Ultimately, I stopped watching the phony charade entirely. This was around about the same time as I was doing my GCSEs, funnily enough.
I seriously considered whether it was worth voting leave for that reason, but I decided the losses involved in what I thought was the unlikely event of Leave winning were too great for emotional gestures.
It turns out that even the UK leaving the EU wasn't enough to bring them to some form of sanity anyway, which would have made such a gesture pointless.
I don't think it's an accident that home ownership in Germany is lower, price of a roof over your head is lower, and productivity is higher than over here in the UK. Fixing the UK's broken housing market would go a long way towards improving productivity. But nobody wants to do that, because it means lower house prices for pensioners and the mortgage free who are all sitting on theoretical six or seven figure gains they can't cash in on anyway because they still need a roof over their heads.
Is it all about people, as you say, wanting tax cut followed by handout followed by subsidy followed by pay rise? Perhaps there is an element of that. But there is also the elephant in the room that an increasing number of working age people are paying 50% or more of their incomes to live in substandard accommodation, sucking all the disposable income out of the economy and encouraging rent seeking over more productive uses of capital.
That's the same percentage of people who self-harm.
I'd like to see a Venn diagram of the two groups.
Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Trust
National Gallery
National Theatre
National Careers Service
National Church Institutions
National Churches Trust
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
National Film and Television School
National Union of Students
National Institute for Clinical Excellence
National Institute for Health and Care Research
During the previous decade, the problem was taking hold, but was masked by an unsustainable financial boom. In trying to avoid a genuine reset of the system through a crash in asset prices we've turned an acute crisis into a chronic disease.
Don't be stupid be a smarty
Come and join the new PB Thread-y
Stop being stupid and part of the problem
Farage is clearly a charlatan of the highest order - Nelson can barely hide his disgust - but he articulates very well a situation that concerns lots of people.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/21/harriet-baldwin-tax-system-perverse-work-doesnt-pay/
I'm pondering whether to buy a new desk chair. My current one isn't very good and is getting rather tatty. If I buy one, I'd like it to be a decent one rather than the bargain basement ones I've bought from Staples in the past (well, obviously I won't be buying from them now anyway)!
Anyone got any recommendations for something really good? I'm willing to splash out a bit within reason because after the year I've had I feel I've earned the right to pamper myself a bit.
On the subject asked however I recommend a gaming chair