Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Rishi’s summer and autumn of discontent – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited July 2023 in General
imageRishi’s summer and autumn of discontent – politicalbetting.com

Uh Oh….Is Rishi Sunak facing another byelection?Sleaze buster report into shamed MP Chris Pincher expected to drop within days…If it finds against him, he is likely to be suspended from Parliament triggering a byelectionhttps://t.co/zWoQqdI3c9

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    edited July 2023
    1st, like Labour at the next General Election.

    And good morning to y'all.

    I see that The Sun Tel has a piece on its front page titled 'TORIES ON COURSE FOR RECORD DEFEAT IN DORRIES BY-ELECTION.'

    That won't help Mike's recovery. As he's fond of pointing out: THERE ISN'T A BY-ELECTION!
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,840
    Anyone any the wiser as to when Dorries might actually quit? Can make a case for her squatting in the seat all the way to the next election just to collect the money, or delaying the resignation tactically to attempt to force Sunak to hold the by-election during the party conference season.

    Squatting would, ironically, much improve the likelihood of the Conservatives holding Mid Beds. If they can't defend Mid Beds at a GE, they're heading for an epochal defeat, below a hundred seats.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    edited July 2023
    pigeon said:

    Anyone any the wiser as to when Dorries might actually quit? Can make a case for her squatting in the seat all the way to the next election just to collect the money, or delaying the resignation tactically to attempt to force Sunak to hold the by-election during the party conference season.

    Squatting would, ironically, much improve the likelihood of the Conservatives holding Mid Beds. If they can't defend Mid Beds at a GE, they're heading for an epochal defeat, below a hundred seats.

    Maybe Rishi should make that deal: Nadine to hang on to the end in return for the peerage she craves.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,779
    edited July 2023
    "... Titans [sic] like Sir Gavin Williamson, Sir Bill Cash, Sir Michael Fabricant, and Jonathan Gullis who would be willing to campaign in the by election."

    Sounds as though all the conditions are there for a huge swing against the Tories.

    (Did the letters 'a' and 'n' creep into that first word through a typo?)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,256
    All the signs are that the country will be handing another very large Parliamentary majority to a PM who one has to be something of an optimist to place any great faith in.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: just contemplating bets. Lots of things that look ok, nothing fantastic. On the plus side, the pretend qualifying result means the weekend's green whatever happens in the race, (assuming a single bet).
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,136
    edited July 2023
    Starmer is a very lucky general - he has no answers to the problems facing the counitry (most of which are common across Europe) and indeed barely pretends to, except housebuilding, which has defeated many better men than him. He criticises the results of Conservative policies on interest rates, for instance, but has not questioned the independence of the Bank of England, and there is no evidence that under him things would been at all different. He also lied much more on policy than Boris Johnson ever did to get elected by the Labour Left, then threw it all down the toilet with a justification so ridiculous that it is actually insulting. And of course most of the media and public barely notice or care. After all, Labour were just as pro-ERM as the Conservatives were, even more if anything, but still benefited spectacularly once the Conservatives left it in 1992. And the Conservative right, who had been spectacularly vindicated, were the main losers in the Blair/Cameron centrist years that followed.

    But luck is a fickle mistress if you don't have decent policies, which he doesn't. The only question, of course, is whether his lies and bullshit are enough to last through the general election.

    I think Sunak is safe for the moment because there is no obvious replacement, and nobody who knows anything about by-elections thinks they are evidence of anything. Otherwise the LibDems would win every general election rather than being a rounding error in Parliament.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,256
    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Of course that ridiculously high margin was possible only because necessary spending on infrastructure didn't happen.

    ...None of the former Ofwat employees has acted improperly or broken any rules around appointments of former civil servants. The regulator says it can impose restrictions on civil servants leaving for the private sector, which can include the type of work they can do, and these are shared with the new employer.

    Helm said that Ofwat should have regulated the balance sheets of the water companies more closely. He said: “There was a failure to stop the companies essentially mortgaging the assets and then paying out the proceeds in dividends. It was a huge regulatory mistake and we are now seeing the consequences.”

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.


    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar calculation ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Betting Post

    F1: backed Norris for a podium at 6.

    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/07/austria-pre-race-2023.html
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,159
    Why does Staffs throw up such duds? Mr Bell excepted, obvs.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    British microchip champion launches US operation in blow to Sunak
    Pragmatic Semiconductor seeks to take advantage of Joe Biden’s $54bn subsidy scheme

    A taxpayer-backed microchip champion has launched operations in the US after warning that meagre support from Britain could force it to move operations abroad.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/01/british-microchip-pragmatic-launches-us-operation/ (£££)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,958
    A problem for the Tories in Tamworth is that they've just selected Walsall North MP Eddie Hughes as candidate for Tamworth at the next election (since Walsall North is being abolished).
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,126
    I don't think any Tory leader can get this back, and if the Tories try to stage yet another leadership coup, they coukd indeed be flirting with oblivion. Ambitious Conservatives are already plotting, but those that survive the coming cull can only make their move after the general election.
    Sunak wants to stay in office, but the longer the Tories stay, the worse the result will be. If they go full term the defeat could be Kim Campbell levels of annihilation. However, the only control the PM has is to set the date of the GE. So its a pretty tricky path ahead.
    It's even possible that they are still in 9ffice next summer, dreaming of the poll ratings they have now.
    What is particularly infuriating is that instead of knuckling gown and making unpopular decisions in the national interest. Sunak is playing politics with his pathetic five pledges. Government by slogan is always weak and always fails.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,475
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Of course that ridiculously high margin was possible only because necessary spending on infrastructure didn't happen.

    ...None of the former Ofwat employees has acted improperly or broken any rules around appointments of former civil servants. The regulator says it can impose restrictions on civil servants leaving for the private sector, which can include the type of work they can do, and these are shared with the new employer.

    Helm said that Ofwat should have regulated the balance sheets of the water companies more closely. He said: “There was a failure to stop the companies essentially mortgaging the assets and then paying out the proceeds in dividends. It was a huge regulatory mistake and we are now seeing the consequences.”

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.


    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar
    calculation ?
    Probably because it’s bullshit

    The margin isn’t a factor for the regulators. They calculate a fixed return based on the regulated asset base and assumptions on cost of debt and levels of leverage

    Basically the shareholders made out like bandits in the early years because the regulator miscalculated the cost of debt. But since then returns have been much more sensible
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    What a great post below @Big_G_NorthWales

    And good luck for your very special 2024
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,352
    Winning in a by election in a seat that is essentially SE Staffordshire, like Blair did, would be iconic for Starmer.

    But it's a tougher asl still than Selby. Blair's swing just gets Labour over the line.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    edited July 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.

    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar calculation ?
    Morning all.

    Richard Murphy LOL.

    If it's to be a credible claim you need a credible claimant.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    London Overground lines to be given names
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66067924

    Wokesters put your thinking caps on.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.

    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar calculation ?
    Morning all.

    Richard Murphy LOL.

    If it's to be a credible claim you need a credible claimant.
    Are you saying Murphy is wrong?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    Heathener said:

    What a great post below @Big_G_NorthWales

    And good luck for your very special 2024

    Thank you @Heathener
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,468
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    Would that make much difference, apart from the psychological one? The repayments would still be x% of salary above £y, so young teachers would be paying out as much each month. The most likely effect would be to reduce the amount the government writes off after forty years.

    (The new terms for new student loans are sneaky and pretty evil. Lower interest rates, sure, but people paying money to the government from a lower income and for more years. Ignoring the way that the eventual write-off was a feature so that lower paid graduates weren't completely screwed over.)
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    Fishing said:

    Starmer is a very lucky general - he has no answers to the problems facing the counitry (most of which are common across Europe) and indeed barely pretends to, except housebuilding, which has defeated many better men than him. He criticises the results of Conservative policies on interest rates, for instance, but has not questioned the independence of the Bank of England, and there is no evidence that under him things would been at all different. He also lied much more on policy than Boris Johnson ever did to get elected by the Labour Left, then threw it all down the toilet with a justification so ridiculous that it is actually insulting. And of course most of the media and public barely notice or care. After all, Labour were just as pro-ERM as the Conservatives were, even more if anything, but still benefited spectacularly once the Conservatives left it in 1992. And the Conservative right, who had been spectacularly vindicated, were the main losers in the Blair/Cameron centrist years that followed.

    But luck is a fickle mistress if you don't have decent policies, which he doesn't. The only question, of course, is whether his lies and bullshit are enough to last through the general election.

    I think Sunak is safe for the moment because there is no obvious replacement, and nobody who knows anything about by-elections thinks they are evidence of anything. Otherwise the LibDems would win every general election rather than being a rounding error in Parliament.

    As usual, whatever Starmer does that you consider to be "lies and bullshit" is nothing compared to the *actual* mendacious lies and bullshit done every single day by this government.

    Starmer is a bit crap. May be a lot crap. People don't care, because he isn't actively corrupt and evil as the government is. Yet.
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 194
    I don't think Rishi's helped by the fact that we seem to hear more from Nad, "Sir" Mogg and "Sir" S Clark than we did when they were ministers.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Rishi Sunak vowed to get tough on universities as they're full of non-Tory voters
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-told-meeting-hed-30370275

    Nothing to see here.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    edited July 2023

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.

    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar calculation ?
    Morning all.

    Richard Murphy LOL.

    If it's to be a credible claim you need a credible claimant.
    Are you saying Murphy is wrong?
    I'm saying that I started occasionally reading Murphy in about 2007, and by 2008 I had seen enough basic mathematical errors in his analyses behind his conclusions to write him off as a fantaloon.

    I have not detected any change since.

    Add in that he is quite the bully, and his involvement in anything is a red flag for me.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,468
    (Probably unintentionally) revealing from Tim Shipman in The Sunday Times;

    At Winchester, Oxford, Stanford, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey, Sunak was told that if he worked hard and solved problems, he would succeed in life. But political reward is more hard won. One cabinet minister put it this way: “In his mind the deal he struck with the universe is not working out. He’s very clever, but he knows that with cleverness comes responsibility to graft ... But if you work hard and do the right thing, the universe will reward you — and in his mind at the moment the universe is not keeping its side of the bargain.”

    It's the risk with meritocracy, that those who succeed under it conclude that all their success is down to their talents and efforts, ignoring the inevitable contribution of luck. And whilst it can be a useful star to navigate your own life by, it's potentially a dangerous belief to have when leading a society.



  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    You sure? Some time back, an O level in French or German was a genuinely useful thing to have to complement one's A-levels when applying to uni or for a job. Same with the basic English and Maths qualifications.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    Wishing you al the best for 2024, @Big_G_NorthWales .

    It looks like a decent day, and everything in my garden has doubled in size. So I won't be around on PB.

    Have a good day, all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,498

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    Surely GCSEs cover wider areas of study, and A-levels narrower? If you do nine GCSEs and three A-levels, then the GCSEs indicate your breadth of knowledge outside the A-levels you chose?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,914
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Of course that ridiculously high margin was possible only because necessary spending on infrastructure didn't happen.

    ...None of the former Ofwat employees has acted improperly or broken any rules around appointments of former civil servants. The regulator says it can impose restrictions on civil servants leaving for the private sector, which can include the type of work they can do, and these are shared with the new employer.

    Helm said that Ofwat should have regulated the balance sheets of the water companies more closely. He said: “There was a failure to stop the companies essentially mortgaging the assets and then paying out the proceeds in dividends. It was a huge regulatory mistake and we are now seeing the consequences.”

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.


    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar calculation ?
    For these sorts of companies it's a one-way bet. It's impossible to have proper competition in water supply because it's a natural monopoly, so you can't simply let normal market mechanisms work and see badly run companies go bust to be replaced by better run companies. The result is effectively legalised theft from the public.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Question - what is the cost of *not* paying to stop teachers quitting? I agree that spending the same money repeatedly is silly. But this is not a zero-sum transaction, where there is only cost on one side.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,468
    sbjme19 said:

    I don't think Rishi's helped by the fact that we seem to hear more from Nad, "Sir" Mogg and "Sir" S Clark than we did when they were ministers.

    Marquees as places for urination.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,159

    London Overground lines to be given names
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66067924

    Wokesters put your thinking caps on.

    Don’t people already call it the Ginger Line?
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Question - what is the cost of *not* paying to stop teachers quitting? I agree that spending the same money repeatedly is silly. But this is not a zero-sum transaction, where there is only cost on one side.
    Where’s the research to show this would prevent quitting in any numbers to be cost effective. It’s just a headline grabbing initiative.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148
    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    Surely GCSEs cover wider areas of study, and A-levels narrower? If you do nine GCSEs and three A-levels, then the GCSEs indicate your breadth of knowledge outside the A-levels you chose?
    I'm not saying children should start school at 16, so the broad education can still take place. However, GCSEs as a qualification are no longer interesting or useful like they used to be when most people left school at 16.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.

    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar calculation ?
    Morning all.

    Richard Murphy LOL.

    If it's to be a credible claim you need a credible claimant.
    Are you saying Murphy is wrong?
    If The Muurph says the sky is blue, then it’s definitely green. It’s like quoting the Daily Mail on immigration reform.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,159
    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Question - what is the cost of *not* paying to stop teachers quitting? I agree that spending the same money repeatedly is silly. But this is not a zero-sum transaction, where there is only cost on one side.
    Where’s the research to show this would prevent quitting in any numbers to be cost effective. It’s just a headline grabbing initiative.
    Sure. Almost certainly. But I have to attack the endless "what would that cost" question which gets thrown at any proposal, as if not acting is zero cost.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,468
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Question - what is the cost of *not* paying to stop teachers quitting? I agree that spending the same money repeatedly is silly. But this is not a zero-sum transaction, where there is only cost on one side.
    Where’s the research to show this would prevent quitting in any numbers to be cost effective. It’s just a headline grabbing initiative.
    The cost of retaining these maths teachers
    through the policy is 32% lower than simply
    recruiting and training 104 additional teachers.
    Not only does this make the policy extremely
    cost-effective, it also means that there is an
    increase in the number of experienced maths
    teachers in the classroom.


    https://www.gatsby.org.uk/uploads/education/reports/pdf/retention-payment-summary-paper.pdf

  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,975
    When Sunak went to Lord’s on Saturday he gave an interview to Test Match Special in which he seemed to acknowledge that it was the job of the captain to turn things around. He said he admired the way the England skipper, Ben Stokes, could “take the same group of people and get so much more out of them”. Those looking for metaphors might point out that Stokes seems to be injured and is performing well with neither bat nor ball.

    Asked about England’s aggressive “Bazball” tactics, Sunak made clear he thought teams should “agree there is a way they are going to play” and “stick with it”. But in what might have been a response to his own critics he said: “There are periods within games that require an approach which recognises the situation you are in.”

    This was a politer way of saying, “Hold your nerve” — a comment Sunak made last weekend that has been interpreted as a tin-eared admonition to nervous homeowners.

    One close ally said: “He’s been steady so far, but the time is fast approaching when we need some political Bazball.” More prosaically, another cabinet minister said: “Rishi needs electrodes attaching to his bollocks.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meltdown-why-rishi-sunak-feels-his-deal-with-the-universe-isnt-working-out-vskxjkvrj
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,165

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    A report published last week by Richard Murphy, professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University, has calculated that the nine water and sewerage companies in England and Wales benefited from a 35% profit margin before financing costs between 2002 to 2022, paying out £24.8bn of profits in dividends.

    Why was Ofwat unable to carry out a similar calculation ?
    Morning all.

    Richard Murphy LOL.

    If it's to be a credible claim you need a credible claimant.
    Are you saying Murphy is wrong?
    Why go for the bloody ball when there’s a bloke to go for?




  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Question - what is the cost of *not* paying to stop teachers quitting? I agree that spending the same money repeatedly is silly. But this is not a zero-sum transaction, where there is only cost on one side.
    Where’s the research to show this would prevent quitting in any numbers to be cost effective. It’s just a headline grabbing initiative.
    The cost of retaining these maths teachers
    through the policy is 32% lower than simply
    recruiting and training 104 additional teachers.
    Not only does this make the policy extremely
    cost-effective, it also means that there is an
    increase in the number of experienced maths
    teachers in the classroom.


    https://www.gatsby.org.uk/uploads/education/reports/pdf/retention-payment-summary-paper.pdf

    As with much of the public sector we are well beyond the point at which reducing real terms pay saves any money, unless we are willing to reduce significanly the scope of what is covered. Otherwise we just end up with demotivated and stressed staff, increased time off sick, expensive "temporary" cover as an ongoing solution, and a lack of continuity and experience.

    It is a nonsensical saving that clashes with reality.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    You sure? Some time back, an O level in French or German was a genuinely useful thing to have to complement one's A-levels when applying to uni or for a job. Same with the basic English and Maths qualifications.
    Speaking German might or might not be useful in different circumstances. Having a GCSE German certificate, less so. Abolition would save money and free up more time for learning German.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
    I suspect the only issue is will it be a Labour majority or a Labour landslide.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,468

    When Sunak went to Lord’s on Saturday he gave an interview to Test Match Special in which he seemed to acknowledge that it was the job of the captain to turn things around. He said he admired the way the England skipper, Ben Stokes, could “take the same group of people and get so much more out of them”. Those looking for metaphors might point out that Stokes seems to be injured and is performing well with neither bat nor ball.

    Asked about England’s aggressive “Bazball” tactics, Sunak made clear he thought teams should “agree there is a way they are going to play” and “stick with it”. But in what might have been a response to his own critics he said: “There are periods within games that require an approach which recognises the situation you are in.”

    This was a politer way of saying, “Hold your nerve” — a comment Sunak made last weekend that has been interpreted as a tin-eared admonition to nervous homeowners.

    One close ally said: “He’s been steady so far, but the time is fast approaching when we need some political Bazball.” More prosaically, another cabinet minister said: “Rishi needs electrodes attaching to his bollocks.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meltdown-why-rishi-sunak-feels-his-deal-with-the-universe-isnt-working-out-vskxjkvrj

    Reminds me of one of my favourite radio jokes

    SCENE: Orwellian interrogation room

    INTERROGATOR: Would you like one of these to smoke?
    VICTIM: No thank you.
    INTERROGATOR: How about one of these?
    VICTIM: I'd rather not.
    INTERROGATOR: Well, I have to stick the electrodes somewhere...


    And with that, I need to go and teach Sunday School. What were they thinking?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
    What difference will that make ?

    Starmer will be continuity Sunak with some tweaks. No ideas, no purpose and no money.

    5 more wasted years
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
    No chance - the only issue is the size of the majority and the scale of the Tory defeat…
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,079

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
    Water supply is not an undertaking that provides any opportunity for new entrants.

    Like other utilities it is madness to try to pretend there can be a market. Or competition.
    But electricity, at least, HAS seen new entrants to the market.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085

    When Sunak went to Lord’s on Saturday he gave an interview to Test Match Special in which he seemed to acknowledge that it was the job of the captain to turn things around. He said he admired the way the England skipper, Ben Stokes, could “take the same group of people and get so much more out of them”. Those looking for metaphors might point out that Stokes seems to be injured and is performing well with neither bat nor ball.

    Asked about England’s aggressive “Bazball” tactics, Sunak made clear he thought teams should “agree there is a way they are going to play” and “stick with it”. But in what might have been a response to his own critics he said: “There are periods within games that require an approach which recognises the situation you are in.”

    This was a politer way of saying, “Hold your nerve” — a comment Sunak made last weekend that has been interpreted as a tin-eared admonition to nervous homeowners.

    One close ally said: “He’s been steady so far, but the time is fast approaching when we need some political Bazball.” More prosaically, another cabinet minister said: “Rishi needs electrodes attaching to his bollocks.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meltdown-why-rishi-sunak-feels-his-deal-with-the-universe-isnt-working-out-vskxjkvrj

    The funniest thing was the reaction on the TMS to this cringe exercise by Sunak. I've never seen so many down votes by the normally fairly docile cricketing community.

    Sitting PM's should be kept well away from TMS in future, be they Cons or Lab or any other.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,737
    Heathener said:

    When Sunak went to Lord’s on Saturday he gave an interview to Test Match Special in which he seemed to acknowledge that it was the job of the captain to turn things around. He said he admired the way the England skipper, Ben Stokes, could “take the same group of people and get so much more out of them”. Those looking for metaphors might point out that Stokes seems to be injured and is performing well with neither bat nor ball.

    Asked about England’s aggressive “Bazball” tactics, Sunak made clear he thought teams should “agree there is a way they are going to play” and “stick with it”. But in what might have been a response to his own critics he said: “There are periods within games that require an approach which recognises the situation you are in.”

    This was a politer way of saying, “Hold your nerve” — a comment Sunak made last weekend that has been interpreted as a tin-eared admonition to nervous homeowners.

    One close ally said: “He’s been steady so far, but the time is fast approaching when we need some political Bazball.” More prosaically, another cabinet minister said: “Rishi needs electrodes attaching to his bollocks.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meltdown-why-rishi-sunak-feels-his-deal-with-the-universe-isnt-working-out-vskxjkvrj

    The funniest thing was the reaction on the TMS to this cringe exercise by Sunak. I've never seen so many down votes by the normally fairly docile cricketing community.

    Sitting PM's should be kept well away from TMS in future, be they Cons or Lab or any other.
    Starmer is more into football, so shouldn't be a problem for him.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972

    When Sunak went to Lord’s on Saturday he gave an interview to Test Match Special in which he seemed to acknowledge that it was the job of the captain to turn things around. He said he admired the way the England skipper, Ben Stokes, could “take the same group of people and get so much more out of them”. Those looking for metaphors might point out that Stokes seems to be injured and is performing well with neither bat nor ball.

    Asked about England’s aggressive “Bazball” tactics, Sunak made clear he thought teams should “agree there is a way they are going to play” and “stick with it”. But in what might have been a response to his own critics he said: “There are periods within games that require an approach which recognises the situation you are in.”

    This was a politer way of saying, “Hold your nerve” — a comment Sunak made last weekend that has been interpreted as a tin-eared admonition to nervous homeowners.

    One close ally said: “He’s been steady so far, but the time is fast approaching when we need some political Bazball.” More prosaically, another cabinet minister said: “Rishi needs electrodes attaching to his bollocks.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meltdown-why-rishi-sunak-feels-his-deal-with-the-universe-isnt-working-out-vskxjkvrj

    We know that Tory Bazball is coming. The strategists have already told them they can't win on actual policies so will need to go ultra-negative.

    The questions will be what they have left to go at.

    Boats? They can't stop them, so will have to go after everyone who is responsible. The French, the courts, leftie lawyers - the enemies of the people. Only problem is that nobody seems to care any more.

    Culture? "Starmer doesn't know what a woman is" has had minimal resonance so far. With the real economy crashing around people's ears, I can't see how that is going to change.

    Labour are worse? The Tories are still touting "there's no money left" despite the reality of an awful lot less money being left now. With towns and communities being as visibly shabby and crumbling as they are, it would take something truly special to persuade people that today is something precious that needs to be preserved...
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,671

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    I'd start with GCSEs for that very reason.

    SATS I'm less sure about; they need the stress taking out of them because teachers communicate it to the kids which is no good for anyone. But having standardised data should be important to individual schools as well as in the aggregate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
    Water supply is not an undertaking that provides any opportunity for new entrants.

    Like other utilities it is madness to try to pretend there can be a market. Or competition.
    The water industry is just another set of assets that we sold off because we wanted the cash and then used it for current spending. We frankly have a cheek complaining that people are now using the assets they bought from us in ways we don't like.

    Clearly, they have obligations in terms of the supply of water and the treatment of sewage and they can rightly be held to account for those services but how they want to fund their business, whether by debt or additional capital is really a matter for them.

    But proper regulation included financial security for companies we cannot afford to go bust. And this is where the regulators have failed. They have failed to risk test the balance sheets against what is, in historical terms, not a particularly large increase in interest rates. The fact this remarkable oversight occurred in an industry where the staff of the water companies and the regulator seem to be interchangeable is concerning.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,477
    edited July 2023
    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?
  • PJHPJH Posts: 694

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    You sure? Some time back, an O level in French or German was a genuinely useful thing to have to complement one's A-levels when applying to uni or for a job. Same with the basic English and Maths qualifications.
    Speaking German might or might not be useful in different circumstances. Having a GCSE German certificate, less so. Abolition would save money and free up more time for learning German.
    I have been wondering about this. In theory my daughter passed her GCSE Spanish with the same grade as I got in German 40 years ago. Yet despite having had those 40 years to forget it all, I find this summer that more than 30 years since my last trip to Germany, I can still remember quite a lot. Whereas last summer in Spain my daughter knew nothing more than a few words.

    I wonder if that's because modern teaching covers what's on the exam, and nothing more, whereas when I was at school we were taught to speak/understand the language? The syllabus doesn't appear to have changed much. Has how exams are set become much more tightly defined than back then?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,737

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
    What difference will that make ?

    Starmer will be continuity Sunak with some tweaks. No ideas, no purpose and no money.

    5 more wasted years
    Even if that were true on individual character, there are obvious and simple things Labour can do to improve things that currently the Tories cannot as their party is a basketcase of extremists and ne'erdowells, and are in hock to a tranche of voters who want things that help them but damage the economic health of the country. Even a relatively cautious Starmer government will do things on housing and infrastructure the Tories cannot and will be able to be much more flexible with the EU than a party that has a fight every time it's pointed out Brexit isn't going well for most people and may need a rethink, even if we are to maintain distance from the major EU/EEA/EFTA agreements.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,228
    Cameron was a pound shop Blair.

    Sunak is a pound shop Cameron.

    He simply isn't up to the job.

    Presumably he'll resign from parliament following a GE defeat and a new Tory leader replacing him. A Richmond by-election ought to be a Tory hold.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    edited July 2023

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
    What difference will that make ?

    Starmer will be continuity Sunak with some tweaks. No ideas, no purpose and no money.

    5 more wasted years
    I too expect that Starmerism will look a lot like Sunakism, though with less of the fake Culture War stuff.

    Even so, we need that change. The abuses, mendacity and corruption of the last few years need to be punished, and punished severely. Democracy needs it.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,067

    London Overground lines to be given names
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66067924

    Wokesters put your thinking caps on.

    The Trans-London Line.
    The Rainbow Line.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
    Water supply is not an undertaking that provides any opportunity for new entrants.

    Like other utilities it is madness to try to pretend there can be a market. Or competition.
    But electricity, at least, HAS seen new entrants to the market.
    To an extent, but it also saw a lot of companies that merely speculated in electricity, neither producing or distributing it. Just using creative accounting to make a quick buck, then become insolvent when the model reached its limits.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
    What difference will that make ?

    Starmer will be continuity Sunak with some tweaks. No ideas, no purpose and no money.

    5 more wasted years
    Clearly that is the question. When debt is over 100% of GDP, £134 bn has been borrowed in 22/23 and in the first two months of 23/24 you have borrowed £42 bn - £19 bn more than the year before - fiscal promises are worthless both for Rishi and Sir K.

    All Sir K can do is under promise and slightly over deliver. And put in some degree of competence and integrity. Neither of those is all that hard. Good luck.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,228
    PJH said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    You sure? Some time back, an O level in French or German was a genuinely useful thing to have to complement one's A-levels when applying to uni or for a job. Same with the basic English and Maths qualifications.
    Speaking German might or might not be useful in different circumstances. Having a GCSE German certificate, less so. Abolition would save money and free up more time for learning German.
    I have been wondering about this. In theory my daughter passed her GCSE Spanish with the same grade as I got in German 40 years ago. Yet despite having had those 40 years to forget it all, I find this summer that more than 30 years since my last trip to Germany, I can still remember quite a lot. Whereas last summer in Spain my daughter knew nothing more than a few words.

    I wonder if that's because modern teaching covers what's on the exam, and nothing more, whereas when I was at school we were taught to speak/understand the language? The syllabus doesn't appear to have changed much. Has how exams are set become much more tightly defined than back then?
    Before travelling abroad I leaarn what to say so that I can order coffee and beer. That's usually sufficient.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,975

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    He’ll take the advice of Liz Truss and lead the growth coalition.

    Biggest guaranteed growth policy: Rejoin the Single Market.

    Starmer is the heir to Thatcher.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about an early declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    Interesting idea. Sunak triggers an election at the start of their conference. Labour caught on the backfoot with no conference able to be hold and having to defend hard against a deluge of shit being hurled at them.

    Almost certain the Tories would lose big. But they would go down fighting, and the cull of mince MPs would improve the party.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    Cameron was a pound shop Blair.

    Sunak is a pound shop Cameron.

    He simply isn't up to the job.

    Presumably he'll resign from parliament following a GE defeat and a new Tory leader replacing him. A Richmond by-election ought to be a Tory hold.

    Starmer is sunak without money.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
    Water supply is not an undertaking that provides any opportunity for new entrants.

    Like other utilities it is madness to try to pretend there can be a market. Or competition.
    The water industry is just another set of assets that we sold off because we wanted the cash and then used it for current spending. We frankly have a cheek complaining that people are now using the assets they bought from us in ways we don't like.

    Clearly, they have obligations in terms of the supply of water and the treatment of sewage and they can rightly be held to account for those services but how they want to fund their business, whether by debt or additional capital is really a matter for them.

    But proper regulation included financial security for companies we cannot afford to go bust. And this is where the regulators have failed. They have failed to risk test the balance sheets against what is, in historical terms, not a particularly large increase in interest rates. The fact this remarkable oversight occurred in an industry where the staff of the water companies and the regulator seem to be interchangeable is concerning.
    Who is this "we"? Is there any evidence on the popularity of privatisation over time?
    Certainly not DavidL, you or me. Scottish water industry isn't privatised.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,945
    edited July 2023
    PJH said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    You sure? Some time back, an O level in French or German was a genuinely useful thing to have to complement one's A-levels when applying to uni or for a job. Same with the basic English and Maths qualifications.
    Speaking German might or might not be useful in different circumstances. Having a GCSE German certificate, less so. Abolition would save money and free up more time for learning German.
    I have been wondering about this. In theory my daughter passed her GCSE Spanish with the same grade as I got in German 40 years ago. Yet despite having had those 40 years to forget it all, I find this summer that more than 30 years since my last trip to Germany, I can still remember quite a lot. Whereas last summer in Spain my daughter knew nothing more than a few words.

    I wonder if that's because modern teaching covers what's on the exam, and nothing more, whereas when I was at school we were taught to speak/understand the language? The syllabus doesn't appear to have changed much. Has how exams are set become much more tightly defined than back then?
    I suppose it depends on when you got your grade C. I got Cs in French and German O Level in 77. My French is not bad still to be honest, but I credit the fact that we were started on French in my primary at age 7, purely spoken, very little written or grammar etc, whereas my German I started at age 14 and have virtually forgotten it all.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806
    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hot off the press via a Norwegian fiord, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    The Tory leader thinks of himself as a problem-solver and that’s how he’s been projected to the public since he arrived in Downing Street. Competence and delivery were supposed to be the motifs of his premiership.

    Here’s the snag. If you are going to market yourself as someone who is good at fixing stuff, you had better be good at fixing stuff. You need to be especially successful at tackling the challenges that you personally identified as mission critical.

    The scorecard currently reads five pledges made, zero pledges fulfilled. On the exam he set for himself, he’s a total fail.

    The five pledges, originally conceived as a way for the Tories to regain some credibility and trust, have boomeranged on the prime minister. Pollsters report that fewer than one in 10 voters think the government is doing well on reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists, bringing down the national debt or removing asylum seekers who cross the Channel. Mr Sunak’s personal approval ratings, which looked quite good in the circumstances when he took over at Number 10, have tumbled into deeply negative territory.

    Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election. Yet even if he gets very lucky and somehow manages to claw his way to five out of five before he has to face the country, he shouldn’t expect to be congratulated. Millions will still be stuck on NHS waiting lists and millions more will have suffered a colossal crunch to their living standards.

    At the beginning of the year, Mr Sunak promised he would bring people “peace of mind”. That’s another of Mr Fix-It’s pledges that have come completely unstuck.

    It’s over for the Tories. Rawnsley is right and I think there’s no,way back for the Tories.

    The only issue is will it be a labour majority or coalition.
    What difference will that make ?

    Starmer will be continuity Sunak with some tweaks. No ideas, no purpose and no money.

    5 more wasted years
    Clearly that is the question. When debt is over 100% of GDP, £134 bn has been borrowed in 22/23 and in the first two months of 23/24 you have borrowed £42 bn - £19 bn more than the year before - fiscal promises are worthless both for Rishi and Sir K.

    All Sir K can do is under promise and slightly over deliver. And put in some degree of competence and integrity. Neither of those is all that hard. Good luck.
    1. Increase taxation on the wealthy* to plug that gap.
    2. Same as 1.
    3. etc.

    (*Yep, that includes me.)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,165
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
    Water supply is not an undertaking that provides any opportunity for new entrants.

    Like other utilities it is madness to try to pretend there can be a market. Or competition.
    The water industry is just another set of assets that we sold off because we wanted the cash and then used it for current spending. We frankly have a cheek complaining that people are now using the assets they bought from us in ways we don't like.

    Clearly, they have obligations in terms of the supply of water and the treatment of sewage and they can rightly be held to account for those services but how they want to fund their business, whether by debt or additional capital is really a matter for them.

    But proper regulation included financial security for companies we cannot afford to go bust. And this is where the regulators have failed. They have failed to risk test the balance sheets against what is, in historical terms, not a particularly large increase in interest rates. The fact this remarkable oversight occurred in an industry where the staff of the water companies and the regulator seem to be interchangeable is concerning.
    Who is this "we"? Is there any evidence on the popularity of privatisation over time?
    The Tories presumably? Luckily Scotland has its own programmes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Question - what is the cost of *not* paying to stop teachers quitting? I agree that spending the same money repeatedly is silly. But this is not a zero-sum transaction, where there is only cost on one side.
    Where’s the research to show this would prevent quitting in any numbers to be cost effective. It’s just a headline grabbing initiative.
    The cost of retaining these maths teachers
    through the policy is 32% lower than simply
    recruiting and training 104 additional teachers.
    Not only does this make the policy extremely
    cost-effective, it also means that there is an
    increase in the number of experienced maths
    teachers in the classroom.


    https://www.gatsby.org.uk/uploads/education/reports/pdf/retention-payment-summary-paper.pdf

    As with much of the public sector we are well beyond the point at which reducing real terms pay saves any money, unless we are willing to reduce significanly the scope of what is covered. Otherwise we just end up with demotivated and stressed staff, increased time off sick, expensive "temporary" cover as an ongoing solution, and a lack of continuity and experience.

    It is a nonsensical saving that clashes with reality.
    It is interesting to see that the NHS workforce plan envisions a system where a lot of healthcare is delivered by health care associates in order to free up time for experienced clinicians to train:



    There really are limits to how many people I can clinically supervise and train at one time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited July 2023

    (Probably unintentionally) revealing from Tim Shipman in The Sunday Times;

    At Winchester, Oxford, Stanford, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey, Sunak was told that if he worked hard and solved problems, he would succeed in life. But political reward is more hard won. One cabinet minister put it this way: “In his mind the deal he struck with the universe is not working out. He’s very clever, but he knows that with cleverness comes responsibility to graft ... But if you work hard and do the right thing, the universe will reward you — and in his mind at the moment the universe is not keeping its side of the bargain.”

    It's the risk with meritocracy, that those who succeed under it conclude that all their success is down to their talents and efforts, ignoring the inevitable contribution of luck. And whilst it can be a useful star to navigate your own life by, it's potentially a dangerous belief to have when leading a society.



    Unfortunately to win a general election you need to win skilled working class and lower middle class voters in marginal seats. They are less easy for a very intelligent, very rich man to know how to appeal to than public school teachers, Oxford tutors and bankers and big corporate executives
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,165

    PJH said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    You sure? Some time back, an O level in French or German was a genuinely useful thing to have to complement one's A-levels when applying to uni or for a job. Same with the basic English and Maths qualifications.
    Speaking German might or might not be useful in different circumstances. Having a GCSE German certificate, less so. Abolition would save money and free up more time for learning German.
    I have been wondering about this. In theory my daughter passed her GCSE Spanish with the same grade as I got in German 40 years ago. Yet despite having had those 40 years to forget it all, I find this summer that more than 30 years since my last trip to Germany, I can still remember quite a lot. Whereas last summer in Spain my daughter knew nothing more than a few words.

    I wonder if that's because modern teaching covers what's on the exam, and nothing more, whereas when I was at school we were taught to speak/understand the language? The syllabus doesn't appear to have changed much. Has how exams are set become much more tightly defined than back then?
    Before travelling abroad I leaarn what to say so that I can order coffee and beer. That's usually sufficient.

    That time you got a cerveza with a shot of café solo though..
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    He’ll take the advice of Liz Truss and lead the growth coalition.

    Biggest guaranteed growth policy: Rejoin the Single Market.

    Starmer is the heir to Thatcher.
    Yes yes young Eagles a bit of ramping.

    But here we are with the “grown ups” in charge and the lie of the land is the same as Truss but with no prospect of much growth.

    THe EU can’t provide it as they’re not particularly charging ahead of the UK and are as deep in the mire as we are

    Starmer in office will be five years of deciding how many penises a woman can have and bribing doctors to do their jobs. Add in yet another slew of pointless laws and the country will be seizing up.

    So again what’s he going to do that’s different?

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    Tory fans please explain:

    image
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    edited July 2023
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
    Water supply is not an undertaking that provides any opportunity for new entrants.

    Like other utilities it is madness to try to pretend there can be a market. Or competition.
    The water industry is just another set of assets that we sold off because we wanted the cash and then used it for current spending. We frankly have a cheek complaining that people are now using the assets they bought from us in ways we don't like.

    Clearly, they have obligations in terms of the supply of water and the treatment of sewage and they can rightly be held to account for those services but how they want to fund their business, whether by debt or additional capital is really a matter for them.

    But proper regulation included financial security for companies we cannot afford to go bust. And this is where the regulators have failed. They have failed to risk test the balance sheets against what is, in historical terms, not a particularly large increase in interest rates. The fact this remarkable oversight occurred in an industry where the staff of the water companies and the regulator seem to be interchangeable is concerning.
    Who is this "we"? Is there any evidence on the popularity of privatisation over time?
    The "we" is the people who elected governments who thought selling capital assets to fund short term spending was a good idea. I despair at the level of ignorance and incomprehension that clogs our political discourse and hides the real choices we face. Just as that recent poll in the thread header on here showed that more than half of the population failed to appreciate that a fall in inflation did not mean that prices did not continue to rise we have politics where things are supposedly "paid" for by taxing someone else without regard to the consequences.

    So, we have VAT on private school fees without recognising that such a course will increase the cost of providing state education to more pupils by more than the money raised. We have the withdrawal of non Dom status without recognising that the money that won't be spent in this country as a consequence will cost more than the additional tax paid. We have windfall taxes without recognising the adverse consequences for investment in the UK will cost us more in lost employment, economic growth and even taxes paid which somehow "pays" for other indulgences. We have people who think that they "paid" for their pension whilst electing governments of all stripes who ran a ponzi scheme using those taxes for current spending.

    But it is so much easier to pretend than to have serious politics and real hard choices.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    The deck chairs are now in a nice tidy line

    But the ships still sinking
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    He’ll take the advice of Liz Truss and lead the growth coalition.

    Biggest guaranteed growth policy: Rejoin the Single Market.

    Starmer is the heir to Thatcher.
    Yes yes young Eagles a bit of ramping.

    But here we are with the “grown ups” in charge and the lie of the land is the same as Truss but with no prospect of much growth.

    THe EU can’t provide it as they’re not particularly charging ahead of the UK and are as deep in the mire as we are

    Starmer in office will be five years of deciding how many penises a woman can have and bribing doctors to do their jobs. Add in yet another slew of pointless laws and the country will be seizing up.

    So again what’s he going to do that’s different?

    :innocent:

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,806

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    The deck chairs are now in a nice tidy line

    But the ships still sinking
    That's what 13 years of Tory incompetence has led to.

    Admit it - everything was better under Labour!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    "Having staked the reputation of his premiership on these vows, he has no choice but to pray that his score will be better than nil out of five by the time of the election"

    Rawnsley today.

    Curiously enough just tiny subeditorial changes are needed to put this thought on the sports page.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,477
    edited July 2023

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    The deck chairs are now in a nice tidy line

    But the ships still sinking
    Quite.
    And in such circumstances it's better to have someone who will at least try to maintain the lifeboats rather than having sold them off to a bloke they knew at school who they just met again in the pub.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    Tory fans please explain:

    image
    Though Sunak was smart enough to steal Labour's NHS workforce plan, albeit one that is grossly underfunded. As usual we live on the never-never, pushing the bill for our lifestyle down the line, onto our children and grandchildren.

    "This 15 year workforce plan is not fully funded. The £2.4bn for new training doesn't cover the increased salaries - there is a huge revenue bill the NHS will need funding as these roles come through. The plan is more aspiration than a plan of how it will be done #NHSWorkforcePlan"

    https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1674745885475893249?t=xr6FaLb_-RSIj-COCj91Lg&s=19
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    The deck chairs are now in a nice tidy line

    But the ships still sinking
    That's what 13 years of Tory incompetence has led to.

    Admit it - everything was better under Labour!
    Lol

    Let’s see we had Blair brown splits, lots of corruption and scandals, mandelson taking his voters for granted so it’s plus ca change.

    The only difference being Tony did Iraq.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Carnyx said:

    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is it any wonder that the regulator has proved ineffective for decades ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/01/exclusive-uk-water-giants-recruit-top-staff-from-regulator-ofwat
    Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

    Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure...


    The conflict with the public interest is utterly obvious. Privatisation of monopoly utilities, where the regulator is less than draconian, is indefensible.
    And who would want to buy into an industry with a draconian regulator ?

    Before the FAA slipped, it was a draconian regulator, for decades. Airlines flourished and manufacturers *liked* strict regulation. If nothing else, it made the barrier to entry higher and higher.

    Providing that regulation doesn’t create a disadvantage to foreign competitors, big companies actually like regulation. Big departments full of compliance people are just added to the customers bill.

    Small companies find it hard to compete in such an environment, though.
    Water supply is not an undertaking that provides any opportunity for new entrants.

    Like other utilities it is madness to try to pretend there can be a market. Or competition.
    The water industry is just another set of assets that we sold off because we wanted the cash and then used it for current spending. We frankly have a cheek complaining that people are now using the assets they bought from us in ways we don't like.

    Clearly, they have obligations in terms of the supply of water and the treatment of sewage and they can rightly be held to account for those services but how they want to fund their business, whether by debt or additional capital is really a matter for them.

    But proper regulation included financial security for companies we cannot afford to go bust. And this is where the regulators have failed. They have failed to risk test the balance sheets against what is, in historical terms, not a particularly large increase in interest rates. The fact this remarkable oversight occurred in an industry where the staff of the water companies and the regulator seem to be interchangeable is concerning.
    Who is this "we"? Is there any evidence on the popularity of privatisation over time?
    Certainly not DavidL, you or me. Scottish water industry isn't privatised.
    No, but it is cash restrained by government as a result with significant adverse consequences for potential development as a result, reducing growth opportunities.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 694

    PJH said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Well they do have people like Peter Mandelson advising them.

    Why not forgive student date, a portion for each year worked in the state sector. Same with younger junior doctors.
    That would be a sensible idea for itself, but I'm not sure how much use it would be. People don't tend to work for abstract accounting principles. Teachers already quit even though the pension remains decent, for example.

    There are economies you could make in education that would help. For example, abolishing SATS, OFQUAL and the DfE. None of them fulfil any useful purpose whatsoever, cost an absolute fortune, and indeed take up a lot of time and money that could spent on far more useful things. You could even add GCSEs to that, particularly given how badly designed the current set are.

    But I very much doubt if Labour, who have always had centralising tendencies, would make them.

    The risk is that this pledge unless they can show where the money would come from would be like the Tory pay rises - as there is no funding, they would come out of school budgets and make them even more impossible to balance.
    There is a lot to be said for abolishing GCSEs which serve no useful function now the school-leaving age has been raised. They are no longer needed for jobs or further study.

    As for Labour saying where the money will come from, they do. It's in your linked article. You clearly do not believe them but that is a different matter.
    You sure? Some time back, an O level in French or German was a genuinely useful thing to have to complement one's A-levels when applying to uni or for a job. Same with the basic English and Maths qualifications.
    Speaking German might or might not be useful in different circumstances. Having a GCSE German certificate, less so. Abolition would save money and free up more time for learning German.
    I have been wondering about this. In theory my daughter passed her GCSE Spanish with the same grade as I got in German 40 years ago. Yet despite having had those 40 years to forget it all, I find this summer that more than 30 years since my last trip to Germany, I can still remember quite a lot. Whereas last summer in Spain my daughter knew nothing more than a few words.

    I wonder if that's because modern teaching covers what's on the exam, and nothing more, whereas when I was at school we were taught to speak/understand the language? The syllabus doesn't appear to have changed much. Has how exams are set become much more tightly defined than back then?
    I suppose it depends on when you got your grade C. I got Cs in French and German O Level in 77. My French is not bad still to be honest, but I credit the fact that we were started on French in my primary at age 7, purely spoken, very little written or grammar etc, whereas my German I started at age 14 and have virtually forgotten it all.
    Grade B for me, but in fact I only took it for 2 years. It was just well taught, in retrospect. I was the same as you for French but didn't really find it that much easier at O Level, but carried on with it to A Level (and what I learned certainly has stuck).

    Incidentally I reckon French is probably the only GCSE I could just sit down and pass today without having to relearn anything.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    HYUFD said:

    (Probably unintentionally) revealing from Tim Shipman in The Sunday Times;

    At Winchester, Oxford, Stanford, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey, Sunak was told that if he worked hard and solved problems, he would succeed in life. But political reward is more hard won. One cabinet minister put it this way: “In his mind the deal he struck with the universe is not working out. He’s very clever, but he knows that with cleverness comes responsibility to graft ... But if you work hard and do the right thing, the universe will reward you — and in his mind at the moment the universe is not keeping its side of the bargain.”

    It's the risk with meritocracy, that those who succeed under it conclude that all their success is down to their talents and efforts, ignoring the inevitable contribution of luck. And whilst it can be a useful star to navigate your own life by, it's potentially a dangerous belief to have when leading a society.



    Unfortunately to win a general election you need to win skilled working class and lower middle class voters in marginal seats. They are less easy for a very intelligent, very rich man to know how to appeal to than public school teachers, Oxford tutors and bankers and big corporate executives
    What a shame they got given the vote, eh? Very unfair.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 341
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    There are plenty of scandals in the Labour party if you care to look.
    The MSM tend not to be as interested in the opposition. Does anyone know what's happened to their chief whip?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    The deck chairs are now in a nice tidy line

    But the ships still sinking
    Quite.
    And in such circumstances it's better to have someone who will at least try to maintain the lifeboats rather than having sold them off to a bloke they knew at school who they just met again in the pub.
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    The deck chairs are now in a nice tidy line

    But the ships still sinking
    Quite.
    And in such circumstances it's better to have someone who will at least try to maintain the lifeboats rather than having sold them off to a bloke they knew at school who they just met again in the pub.
    Ridiculous

    Blair sold them in a posh restaurant. He wouldnt grubby himself in a pub.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    dixiedean said:

    It's all over for this lot.
    The prospect of 18 months of blocking while they hope something turns up is deeply depressing.
    If we are talking Tory Bazball, here's an idea.
    How about a surprise declaration to have a few overs at them while the conditions are dire?

    So what’s starmer going to do that’s materially different ?

    Swapping Tweedle Dee for Tweedle Dum achieves nothing
    As others have mentioned.
    Not be scandal ridden.
    Lead a Party that isn't fighting amongst itself.
    Be a PM with the confidence that there isn't a constant background hum of "we should change the PM".
    Have a government that is excited and grateful to be in government, rather than treating it as some tiresome obligation.
    All of these are improvements.
    The deck chairs are now in a nice tidy line

    But the ships still sinking
    "I'm sorry I didn't build you a stronger Tory Party, young Rose."
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Labour showing a disturbing tendency to revert to Brown’s double counting:

    Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820

    They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?

    Question - what is the cost of *not* paying to stop teachers quitting? I agree that spending the same money repeatedly is silly. But this is not a zero-sum transaction, where there is only cost on one side.
    Where’s the research to show this would prevent quitting in any numbers to be cost effective. It’s just a headline grabbing initiative.
    The cost of retaining these maths teachers
    through the policy is 32% lower than simply
    recruiting and training 104 additional teachers.
    Not only does this make the policy extremely
    cost-effective, it also means that there is an
    increase in the number of experienced maths
    teachers in the classroom.


    https://www.gatsby.org.uk/uploads/education/reports/pdf/retention-payment-summary-paper.pdf

    As with much of the public sector we are well beyond the point at which reducing real terms pay saves any money, unless we are willing to reduce significanly the scope of what is covered. Otherwise we just end up with demotivated and stressed staff, increased time off sick, expensive "temporary" cover as an ongoing solution, and a lack of continuity and experience.

    It is a nonsensical saving that clashes with reality.
    It is interesting to see that the NHS workforce plan envisions a system where a lot of healthcare is delivered by health care associates in order to free up time for experienced clinicians to train:



    There really are limits to how many people I can clinically supervise and train at one time.
    As a matter of interest, does it really bother people on the receiving end of NHS care that a lot of stuff is qoing to be delivered by non-professional associates, or that medical and other degrees are going to be shortened?
This discussion has been closed.