Just wondering, while dinner cooks, if there is any precedent for Mr Jenrick. I did come across this banning of toys for sick children in the Victorian workhouse. But on further scrutiny they were fine with toys - just that they shouldn't be bought with tax money but come out of "private liberality"; and in fact Government thought that was going too far. Now, spending money to paint over those cartoons ...
There was an Edwardian chap in that documentary about the first flying car, I believe it’s called “Chitty chitty bang bang”, who had a career making kids’ lives miserable. Never got his name but think he was referred to as “The child catcher” or something. Not the Jimmy Savile doc.
Some berk a few years ago banning books in prison...
I seemed to remember that was a similar thing. It wasn't a "book ban" as such, it was that small packages were being used to widely smuggle in contraband. So they banned all small packages being sent in from the outside without special permission, which then people said well that includes books.
Prisoners weren't banned from books from the prison library etc.
Rules restricting the number of books a prisoner can have have been overturned by Justice Secretary Michael Gove.
A limit of 12 books per cell has been removed, while relatives and friends can now send books to inmates directly.
The rule changes, affecting more than 80,000 inmates in England and Wales, are meant to help prepare inmates for work when released.
Mr Gove said those "languishing in prison" were "potential assets" who could be "productive and contribute".
The scrapping of the rules from 1 September is one of Mr Gove's first key changes to prison policy since being appointed as justice secretary.
The restriction on receiving books directly came as a result of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, introduced in November 2013 under Mr Gove's predecessor, Chris Grayling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33497581
Now I'm actually beginning to warm to the putative spokesperson for the Scottish fishing ports of Fraserhead and Peterborough for the first time.
Apparently the writer of “the email” is some kind of pest. There’s a harassment case.
OMG. Any source on this that it would be appropriate to post?
This was the third main possibility.
1 was exy or somebody who is very close to her and who feels her pain. 2 was a highly capable disinterested professional. 3 was a nutter who only knows about these people from the media and who is at least borderline psychotic, capable of handling facts but also prone to believing that false stuff he has imagined is true.
I know of somebody who'd be a fit for 3, a deranged psychology and computer science academic who for many years has plagued a chat site I go to, ranting like a m*f* about what he believes are the extra-marital affairs and unlawfully youngster-focused behaviours of other chatters. He has also carried out harassment off-site. The guy is clever, technically sussed, and highly manipulative. I've always expected he'll end up in jail. Not saying it's him, but such types exist and it could be.
I highly doubt it was @malcolmg, but you never know.
Joking aside. The horrifying levels of behaviour that "stalking" is used to describe....
Most should know of the phenomenon where, after a notorious crime is committed, various sad cases show up to confess to them. All should know of this, since it is a major source of miscarriages of justice - despite them often being known to the police as serial confessors, they become a useful way to close a case quickly.
This happens in many countries.
There is a horrible equivalent, less spoken of, of people who elaborately stalk and accuse *other* people of crimes. One lady I know was relentlessly stalked by it turned out, a female co-worker, who made elaborate attempts to frame her for various things, stole her identity and a bunch of mad, crazy shit beyond that. In many ways, it could have been worse, if the stalker had been less batshit - then the accusations and faked evidence could have actually worked.
The correct answer when someone says "I can't belief that someone would fake a report/accusation of crime X" is "It has happened. Many times."
I had an online stalker a few years ago. It was odd and a bit unsettling. They would track me around various websites/social media places then send messages to all my 'friends' saying things like "Do you know his secret?", "Have you heard the rumours?" etc etc. Thankfully they all either ignored it or blocked them.
But I was left kind of puzzled and disquieted. Who were they? ... Why? My main secret is being a boring podgy middle-aged IT worker rather than the frankly fascinating glitterati I appear on sites such as this.
Hello ohnotnow, I’m back. And I know your secrets.
Scotland currently operates under a de facto decriminalisation policy for personal drug use. Unlike a criminal justice approach, our focus is primarily on public health. However, it is important not to be swayed by exaggerated claims. While Scotland and England have similar drug laws, England has significantly lower drug-related mortality rates, in fact they have 5 times less deaths than Scotland, indicating that their treatment system is more effective. The solution is not elusive; it simply requires a commitment to practical measures. It is crucial to recognise that politicians often engage in political maneuvering on this issue, and we should not be easily swayed by their rhetoric. The serious academic community has yet to reach a definitive consensus on the evidence supporting decriminalisation and legalisation, so we should approach this issue with caution.
The mortality rate between Scotland and England is frankly bewildering. The Misuse of Drugs Act applies to both countries. The regulatory regimes are similar. The medical services are pretty similar. What the hell makes the difference?
The people dying now are the Trainspotting generation of long term drug users. We seemed to go through a period in the 1980s where drug usage, particularly of opiates, just went out of control and we have never recovered. Many of the reasons are historical and I would not by any means blame the current government for all of it but jeez, we have lost more people to drugs over the last 20 years than you would expect from a medium sized war. We really, really need to try something else.
Edinburgh and Glasgow both had massive heroin problems 80s/90s, and anyone who survived that back in the day is an absolute mess now - they don't make old bones. Also alcohol abuse is still endemic, despite things like minimum pricing.
Factor in the huge drug problems in coastal towns (drugs arrive via boat and are relatively cheap), and that much of Scotland is coastal.
Sadly, young people who don't go off to university/college or into a decent job are particularly vulnerable to this. One of my friends has lost two young male family members to overdose in their 20s/30s - coastal Scotland. All the kids in the family who completed their education/training went on to live stable lives.
Speaking personally of Glasgow - there's also a certain Nihilism that I've not experienced so much in England outside of some of the depressed areas of Sheffield etc. Maybe common amongst formerly industrial areas - but I still feel it's more common here.
Might be the local patter/sense of humour. It's always been pretty bleak.
Creative law making. State law allowed Democrat [Governor] Tony Evers to strike words and digits from a revenue hike proposed until 2025, instead locking in the funds till 2425.
Republicans have reacted with fury to what they call "an unprecedented brand-new way to screw the taxpayer". The move could however be undone by a legal challenge or future governor.
It is the latest tussle between Mr Evers, a former public school teacher who narrowly won re-election last year, and a Republican-controlled state legislature that has often blocked his agenda...
But Wisconsin allows its governors to alter certain pieces of legislation by striking words and numbers as they see fit before signing them into law - what is known as partial veto power. Both Democrats and Republicans have flexed their partial veto authority for years, with Mr Evers' Republican predecessor once deploying it to extend a state programme's deadline by one thousand years. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66137111
This week, before he signed the biennial state budget into law, the governor altered language that applied the $325 increase to the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, vetoeing a hyphen and a "20" to instead make the end date 2425.
OK that's pretty damned ingenious and hilarious. Well done him.
There's a simple way to reverse that and that is to win an election and repeal it.
Considering how Wisconsin law operates and precedence here, it seems entirely above board with their system.
Just wondering, while dinner cooks, if there is any precedent for Mr Jenrick. I did come across this banning of toys for sick children in the Victorian workhouse. But on further scrutiny they were fine with toys - just that they shouldn't be bought with tax money but come out of "private liberality"; and in fact Government thought that was going too far. Now, spending money to paint over those cartoons ...
There was an Edwardian chap in that documentary about the first flying car, I believe it’s called “Chitty chitty bang bang”, who had a career making kids’ lives miserable. Never got his name but think he was referred to as “The child catcher” or something. Not the Jimmy Savile doc.
Some berk a few years ago banning books in prison...
I seemed to remember that was a similar thing. It wasn't a "book ban" as such, it was that small packages were being used to widely smuggle in contraband. So they banned all small packages being sent in from the outside without special permission, which then people said well that includes books.
Prisoners weren't banned from books from the prison library etc.
Rules restricting the number of books a prisoner can have have been overturned by Justice Secretary Michael Gove.
A limit of 12 books per cell has been removed, while relatives and friends can now send books to inmates directly.
The rule changes, affecting more than 80,000 inmates in England and Wales, are meant to help prepare inmates for work when released.
Mr Gove said those "languishing in prison" were "potential assets" who could be "productive and contribute".
The scrapping of the rules from 1 September is one of Mr Gove's first key changes to prison policy since being appointed as justice secretary.
The restriction on receiving books directly came as a result of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, introduced in November 2013 under Mr Gove's predecessor, Chris Grayling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33497581
Now I'm actually beginning to warm to the putative spokesperson for the Scottish fishing ports of Fraserhead and Peterborough for the first time.
Gove did some really good work at Justice. He is someone who truly believes in rehabilitation, not just throw away the key.
Apparently the writer of “the email” is some kind of pest. There’s a harassment case.
OMG. Any source on this that it would be appropriate to post?
This was the third main possibility.
1 was exy or somebody who is very close to her and who feels her pain. 2 was a highly capable disinterested professional. 3 was a nutter who only knows about these people from the media and who is at least borderline psychotic, capable of handling facts but also prone to believing that false stuff he has imagined is true.
I know of somebody who'd be a fit for 3, a deranged psychology and computer science academic who for many years has plagued a chat site I go to, ranting like a m*f* about what he believes are the extra-marital affairs and unlawfully youngster-focused behaviours of other chatters. He has also carried out harassment off-site. The guy is clever, technically sussed, and highly manipulative. I've always expected he'll end up in jail. Not saying it's him, but such types exist and it could be.
I highly doubt it was @malcolmg, but you never know.
Joking aside. The horrifying levels of behaviour that "stalking" is used to describe....
Most should know of the phenomenon where, after a notorious crime is committed, various sad cases show up to confess to them. All should know of this, since it is a major source of miscarriages of justice - despite them often being known to the police as serial confessors, they become a useful way to close a case quickly.
This happens in many countries.
There is a horrible equivalent, less spoken of, of people who elaborately stalk and accuse *other* people of crimes. One lady I know was relentlessly stalked by it turned out, a female co-worker, who made elaborate attempts to frame her for various things, stole her identity and a bunch of mad, crazy shit beyond that. In many ways, it could have been worse, if the stalker had been less batshit - then the accusations and faked evidence could have actually worked.
The correct answer when someone says "I can't belief that someone would fake a report/accusation of crime X" is "It has happened. Many times."
I had an online stalker a few years ago. It was odd and a bit unsettling. They would track me around various websites/social media places then send messages to all my 'friends' saying things like "Do you know his secret?", "Have you heard the rumours?" etc etc. Thankfully they all either ignored it or blocked them.
But I was left kind of puzzled and disquieted. Who were they? ... Why? My main secret is being a boring podgy middle-aged IT worker rather than the frankly fascinating glitterati I appear on sites such as this.
Hello ohnotnow, I’m back. And I know your secrets.
God, both of them? The second one about the shoddy ethernet cabling in my flat? Hot damn...
Scotland currently operates under a de facto decriminalisation policy for personal drug use. Unlike a criminal justice approach, our focus is primarily on public health. However, it is important not to be swayed by exaggerated claims. While Scotland and England have similar drug laws, England has significantly lower drug-related mortality rates, in fact they have 5 times less deaths than Scotland, indicating that their treatment system is more effective. The solution is not elusive; it simply requires a commitment to practical measures. It is crucial to recognise that politicians often engage in political maneuvering on this issue, and we should not be easily swayed by their rhetoric. The serious academic community has yet to reach a definitive consensus on the evidence supporting decriminalisation and legalisation, so we should approach this issue with caution.
The mortality rate between Scotland and England is frankly bewildering. The Misuse of Drugs Act applies to both countries. The regulatory regimes are similar. The medical services are pretty similar. What the hell makes the difference?
The people dying now are the Trainspotting generation of long term drug users. We seemed to go through a period in the 1980s where drug usage, particularly of opiates, just went out of control and we have never recovered. Many of the reasons are historical and I would not by any means blame the current government for all of it but jeez, we have lost more people to drugs over the last 20 years than you would expect from a medium sized war. We really, really need to try something else.
Edinburgh and Glasgow both had massive heroin problems 80s/90s, and anyone who survived that back in the day is an absolute mess now - they don't make old bones. Also alcohol abuse is still endemic, despite things like minimum pricing.
Factor in the huge drug problems in coastal towns (drugs arrive via boat and are relatively cheap), and that much of Scotland is coastal.
Sadly, young people who don't go off to university/college or into a decent job are particularly vulnerable to this. One of my friends has lost two young male family members to overdose in their 20s/30s - coastal Scotland. All the kids in the family who completed their education/training went on to live stable lives.
Speaking personally of Glasgow - there's also a certain Nihilism that I've not experienced so much in England outside of some of the depressed areas of Sheffield etc. Maybe common amongst formerly industrial areas - but I still feel it's more common here.
I don't suppose the Glasgow effect and the most likely cause of it (an historical policy of getting viable younger people out to new towns and letting the inner city and its inhabitatants run down) helps. For reasons I won't go into I've had a bit of recent contact with local drug users who have been in the life since the 80s. They've pretty much beat the odds to still be around but are very fragile physically. They're in some ways the usual mixture, charismatic, funny, gentle, or rsoles who'd pimp their granny, sometimes in the same package.
There was a medical appliances shop in the Pubic Triangle area of Edinburgh which I used to frequent, the area I mean, as it had/has excellent 2/hand bookshops. It used to sell clean disposable needles. But, as I understand matters, a born-again holier-than-thou local police chief was not impressed, and applied pressure. Whence the HIV epidemic. That generation would indeed be in their 50s-ish now, and beginning to fall apart health wise.
I went to the art school so knew the area quite well (the pub(ic)s and the bookshops) but didn't know about the needle supplier. Putting a stopper in the genie's bottle of sin was never much good for prevention or cure.
Just wondering, while dinner cooks, if there is any precedent for Mr Jenrick. I did come across this banning of toys for sick children in the Victorian workhouse. But on further scrutiny they were fine with toys - just that they shouldn't be bought with tax money but come out of "private liberality"; and in fact Government thought that was going too far. Now, spending money to paint over those cartoons ...
There was an Edwardian chap in that documentary about the first flying car, I believe it’s called “Chitty chitty bang bang”, who had a career making kids’ lives miserable. Never got his name but think he was referred to as “The child catcher” or something. Not the Jimmy Savile doc.
Some berk a few years ago banning books in prison...
I seemed to remember that was a similar thing. It wasn't a "book ban" as such, it was that small packages were being used to widely smuggle in contraband. So they banned all small packages being sent in from the outside without special permission, which then people said well that includes books.
Prisoners weren't banned from books from the prison library etc.
Rules restricting the number of books a prisoner can have have been overturned by Justice Secretary Michael Gove.
A limit of 12 books per cell has been removed, while relatives and friends can now send books to inmates directly.
The rule changes, affecting more than 80,000 inmates in England and Wales, are meant to help prepare inmates for work when released.
Mr Gove said those "languishing in prison" were "potential assets" who could be "productive and contribute".
The scrapping of the rules from 1 September is one of Mr Gove's first key changes to prison policy since being appointed as justice secretary.
The restriction on receiving books directly came as a result of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, introduced in November 2013 under Mr Gove's predecessor, Chris Grayling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33497581
Now I'm actually beginning to warm to the putative spokesperson for the Scottish fishing ports of Fraserhead and Peterborough for the first time.
Gove did some really good work at Justice. He is someone who truly believes in rehabilitation, not just throw away the key.
Yes, but the enlightened Gove also left a shortage of court and prison capacity.
Scotland currently operates under a de facto decriminalisation policy for personal drug use. Unlike a criminal justice approach, our focus is primarily on public health. However, it is important not to be swayed by exaggerated claims. While Scotland and England have similar drug laws, England has significantly lower drug-related mortality rates, in fact they have 5 times less deaths than Scotland, indicating that their treatment system is more effective. The solution is not elusive; it simply requires a commitment to practical measures. It is crucial to recognise that politicians often engage in political maneuvering on this issue, and we should not be easily swayed by their rhetoric. The serious academic community has yet to reach a definitive consensus on the evidence supporting decriminalisation and legalisation, so we should approach this issue with caution.
The mortality rate between Scotland and England is frankly bewildering. The Misuse of Drugs Act applies to both countries. The regulatory regimes are similar. The medical services are pretty similar. What the hell makes the difference?
The people dying now are the Trainspotting generation of long term drug users. We seemed to go through a period in the 1980s where drug usage, particularly of opiates, just went out of control and we have never recovered. Many of the reasons are historical and I would not by any means blame the current government for all of it but jeez, we have lost more people to drugs over the last 20 years than you would expect from a medium sized war. We really, really need to try something else.
Edinburgh and Glasgow both had massive heroin problems 80s/90s, and anyone who survived that back in the day is an absolute mess now - they don't make old bones. Also alcohol abuse is still endemic, despite things like minimum pricing.
Factor in the huge drug problems in coastal towns (drugs arrive via boat and are relatively cheap), and that much of Scotland is coastal.
Sadly, young people who don't go off to university/college or into a decent job are particularly vulnerable to this. One of my friends has lost two young male family members to overdose in their 20s/30s - coastal Scotland. All the kids in the family who completed their education/training went on to live stable lives.
Speaking personally of Glasgow - there's also a certain Nihilism that I've not experienced so much in England outside of some of the depressed areas of Sheffield etc. Maybe common amongst formerly industrial areas - but I still feel it's more common here.
My late Dad (who left in the early 60s), reported as much. Lots of his friends from childhood were dead in their late 40s/early 50s from very heavy drinking, it was simply normal for working class men who worked in very physical jobs.
Just wondering, while dinner cooks, if there is any precedent for Mr Jenrick. I did come across this banning of toys for sick children in the Victorian workhouse. But on further scrutiny they were fine with toys - just that they shouldn't be bought with tax money but come out of "private liberality"; and in fact Government thought that was going too far. Now, spending money to paint over those cartoons ...
There was an Edwardian chap in that documentary about the first flying car, I believe it’s called “Chitty chitty bang bang”, who had a career making kids’ lives miserable. Never got his name but think he was referred to as “The child catcher” or something. Not the Jimmy Savile doc.
Some berk a few years ago banning books in prison...
I seemed to remember that was a similar thing. It wasn't a "book ban" as such, it was that small packages were being used to widely smuggle in contraband. So they banned all small packages being sent in from the outside without special permission, which then people said well that includes books.
Prisoners weren't banned from books from the prison library etc.
Rules restricting the number of books a prisoner can have have been overturned by Justice Secretary Michael Gove.
A limit of 12 books per cell has been removed, while relatives and friends can now send books to inmates directly.
The rule changes, affecting more than 80,000 inmates in England and Wales, are meant to help prepare inmates for work when released.
Mr Gove said those "languishing in prison" were "potential assets" who could be "productive and contribute".
The scrapping of the rules from 1 September is one of Mr Gove's first key changes to prison policy since being appointed as justice secretary.
The restriction on receiving books directly came as a result of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, introduced in November 2013 under Mr Gove's predecessor, Chris Grayling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33497581
Now I'm actually beginning to warm to the putative spokesperson for the Scottish fishing ports of Fraserhead and Peterborough for the first time.
Gove did some really good work at Justice. He is someone who truly believes in rehabilitation, not just throw away the key.
Yes, but the enlightened Gove also left a shortage of court and prison capacity.
I suspect that can be linked more to the Treasury than to Gove.
Apparently the writer of “the email” is some kind of pest. There’s a harassment case.
OMG. Any source on this that it would be appropriate to post?
This was the third main possibility.
1 was exy or somebody who is very close to her and who feels her pain. 2 was a highly capable disinterested professional. 3 was a nutter who only knows about these people from the media and who is at least borderline psychotic, capable of handling facts but also prone to believing that false stuff he has imagined is true.
I know of somebody who'd be a fit for 3, a deranged psychology and computer science academic who for many years has plagued a chat site I go to, ranting like a m*f* about what he believes are the extra-marital affairs and unlawfully youngster-focused behaviours of other chatters. He has also carried out harassment off-site. The guy is clever, technically sussed, and highly manipulative. I've always expected he'll end up in jail. Not saying it's him, but such types exist and it could be.
I highly doubt it was @malcolmg, but you never know.
Joking aside. The horrifying levels of behaviour that "stalking" is used to describe....
Most should know of the phenomenon where, after a notorious crime is committed, various sad cases show up to confess to them. All should know of this, since it is a major source of miscarriages of justice - despite them often being known to the police as serial confessors, they become a useful way to close a case quickly.
This happens in many countries.
There is a horrible equivalent, less spoken of, of people who elaborately stalk and accuse *other* people of crimes. One lady I know was relentlessly stalked by it turned out, a female co-worker, who made elaborate attempts to frame her for various things, stole her identity and a bunch of mad, crazy shit beyond that. In many ways, it could have been worse, if the stalker had been less batshit - then the accusations and faked evidence could have actually worked.
The correct answer when someone says "I can't belief that someone would fake a report/accusation of crime X" is "It has happened. Many times."
I had an online stalker a few years ago. It was odd and a bit unsettling. They would track me around various websites/social media places then send messages to all my 'friends' saying things like "Do you know his secret?", "Have you heard the rumours?" etc etc. Thankfully they all either ignored it or blocked them.
But I was left kind of puzzled and disquieted. Who were they? ... Why? My main secret is being a boring podgy middle-aged IT worker rather than the frankly fascinating glitterati I appear on sites such as this.
Hello ohnotnow, I’m back. And I know your secrets.
God, both of them? The second one about the shoddy ethernet cabling in my flat? Hot damn...
And the other one where you told that girl you read “Eat, Pray, Love” but you hadn’t .
Scotland currently operates under a de facto decriminalisation policy for personal drug use. Unlike a criminal justice approach, our focus is primarily on public health. However, it is important not to be swayed by exaggerated claims. While Scotland and England have similar drug laws, England has significantly lower drug-related mortality rates, in fact they have 5 times less deaths than Scotland, indicating that their treatment system is more effective. The solution is not elusive; it simply requires a commitment to practical measures. It is crucial to recognise that politicians often engage in political maneuvering on this issue, and we should not be easily swayed by their rhetoric. The serious academic community has yet to reach a definitive consensus on the evidence supporting decriminalisation and legalisation, so we should approach this issue with caution.
The mortality rate between Scotland and England is frankly bewildering. The Misuse of Drugs Act applies to both countries. The regulatory regimes are similar. The medical services are pretty similar. What the hell makes the difference?
The people dying now are the Trainspotting generation of long term drug users. We seemed to go through a period in the 1980s where drug usage, particularly of opiates, just went out of control and we have never recovered. Many of the reasons are historical and I would not by any means blame the current government for all of it but jeez, we have lost more people to drugs over the last 20 years than you would expect from a medium sized war. We really, really need to try something else.
Edinburgh and Glasgow both had massive heroin problems 80s/90s, and anyone who survived that back in the day is an absolute mess now - they don't make old bones. Also alcohol abuse is still endemic, despite things like minimum pricing.
Factor in the huge drug problems in coastal towns (drugs arrive via boat and are relatively cheap), and that much of Scotland is coastal.
Sadly, young people who don't go off to university/college or into a decent job are particularly vulnerable to this. One of my friends has lost two young male family members to overdose in their 20s/30s - coastal Scotland. All the kids in the family who completed their education/training went on to live stable lives.
Speaking personally of Glasgow - there's also a certain Nihilism that I've not experienced so much in England outside of some of the depressed areas of Sheffield etc. Maybe common amongst formerly industrial areas - but I still feel it's more common here.
I don't suppose the Glasgow effect and the most likely cause of it (an historical policy of getting viable younger people out to new towns and letting the inner city and its inhabitatants run down) helps. For reasons I won't go into I've had a bit of recent contact with local drug users who have been in the life since the 80s. They've pretty much beat the odds to still be around but are very fragile physically. They're in some ways the usual mixture, charismatic, funny, gentle, or rsoles who'd pimp their granny, sometimes in the same package.
There was a medical appliances shop in the Pubic Triangle area of Edinburgh which I used to frequent, the area I mean, as it had/has excellent 2/hand bookshops. It used to sell clean disposable needles. But, as I understand matters, a born-again holier-than-thou local police chief was not impressed, and applied pressure. Whence the HIV epidemic. That generation would indeed be in their 50s-ish now, and beginning to fall apart health wise.
I went to the art school so knew the area quite well (the pub(ic)s and the bookshops) but didn't know about the needle supplier. Putting a stopper in the genie's bottle of sin was never much good for prevention or cure.
Ah! I used to work not far away, and often walked over to the bookshops and hobby shop and dim sum places at lunchtime. Very much Burke and Hare territory in the old days, too. The shop was somewhere on the left side here - I can't work out which it is, it has changed so much in the last 20 years - but there is still a pubic flavour as you can see on the right.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
Still, @Stuartinromford is right. Too many of our politicians lack basic tradecraft. They can't make speeches, they can't answer questions, they can't understand the bills they are voting on. And with notable exceptions like Mrs Thatcher, they do not take advantage of training.
I'm less convinced. The age of deference has long passed - had we had Paxman-style questioning in the Heath/Wilson period I'm sure their weaknesses would have shone through. We expect every politician to answer authoritatively about every question every time and can immediately fact-check every answer via Google or Twitter.
We scoff if a politician says "I don't Know" and I imagien the media training says that's the cardinal sin but I actually think it would be honest. I'm rarely surprised by the depth of my own ignorance - I can't be alone.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
I presume he is back to looking like somebody out of Goldie Lookin Chain now the cameras aren't on him.
Well, more casual events would reasonably have more casual attire I guess. He looks like he's enjoying mainstream irrelevance, as factional devotion is much more satisfying.
Shelley was up himself to a ridiculous extent.
Plus bloody 1. Ozzy Mandy Arse is by several furlongs the most overrated poem in history.
Alien Covenant
The trick, Dr. Prasannan, is not minding that it hurts.
That was the previous film, Prometheus (quoting Lawrence of Arabia, of course!).
Scotland currently operates under a de facto decriminalisation policy for personal drug use. Unlike a criminal justice approach, our focus is primarily on public health. However, it is important not to be swayed by exaggerated claims. While Scotland and England have similar drug laws, England has significantly lower drug-related mortality rates, in fact they have 5 times less deaths than Scotland, indicating that their treatment system is more effective. The solution is not elusive; it simply requires a commitment to practical measures. It is crucial to recognise that politicians often engage in political maneuvering on this issue, and we should not be easily swayed by their rhetoric. The serious academic community has yet to reach a definitive consensus on the evidence supporting decriminalisation and legalisation, so we should approach this issue with caution.
The mortality rate between Scotland and England is frankly bewildering. The Misuse of Drugs Act applies to both countries. The regulatory regimes are similar. The medical services are pretty similar. What the hell makes the difference?
The people dying now are the Trainspotting generation of long term drug users. We seemed to go through a period in the 1980s where drug usage, particularly of opiates, just went out of control and we have never recovered. Many of the reasons are historical and I would not by any means blame the current government for all of it but jeez, we have lost more people to drugs over the last 20 years than you would expect from a medium sized war. We really, really need to try something else.
Edinburgh and Glasgow both had massive heroin problems 80s/90s, and anyone who survived that back in the day is an absolute mess now - they don't make old bones. Also alcohol abuse is still endemic, despite things like minimum pricing.
Factor in the huge drug problems in coastal towns (drugs arrive via boat and are relatively cheap), and that much of Scotland is coastal.
Sadly, young people who don't go off to university/college or into a decent job are particularly vulnerable to this. One of my friends has lost two young male family members to overdose in their 20s/30s - coastal Scotland. All the kids in the family who completed their education/training went on to live stable lives.
Speaking personally of Glasgow - there's also a certain Nihilism that I've not experienced so much in England outside of some of the depressed areas of Sheffield etc. Maybe common amongst formerly industrial areas - but I still feel it's more common here.
I don't suppose the Glasgow effect and the most likely cause of it (an historical policy of getting viable younger people out to new towns and letting the inner city and its inhabitatants run down) helps. For reasons I won't go into I've had a bit of recent contact with local drug users who have been in the life since the 80s. They've pretty much beat the odds to still be around but are very fragile physically. They're in some ways the usual mixture, charismatic, funny, gentle, or rsoles who'd pimp their granny, sometimes in the same package.
There was a medical appliances shop in the Pubic Triangle area of Edinburgh which I used to frequent, the area I mean, as it had/has excellent 2/hand bookshops. It used to sell clean disposable needles. But, as I understand matters, a born-again holier-than-thou local police chief was not impressed, and applied pressure. Whence the HIV epidemic. That generation would indeed be in their 50s-ish now, and beginning to fall apart health wise.
I went to the art school so knew the area quite well (the pub(ic)s and the bookshops) but didn't know about the needle supplier. Putting a stopper in the genie's bottle of sin was never much good for prevention or cure.
Ah! I used to work not far away, and often walked over to the bookshops and hobby shop and dim sum places at lunchtime. Very much Burke and Hare territory in the old days, too. The shop was somewhere on the left side here - I can't work out which it is, it has changed so much in the last 20 years - but there is still a pubic flavour as you can see on the right.
The Dutch government has collapsed because of differences between coalition parties over asylum policies, according to media reports...
New elections will now be held, probably in the autumn.
[Rutte's] conservative VVD party had been trying to limit the flow of asylum seekers, but junior partners D66 and the Christian Union refused to support the proposals...
Mr Rutte, 56, is the country's longest serving prime minister and has been in office since 2010. The current government - which took office in January 2022 - is his fourth coalition. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66139789
Sounds like a classic European ever-revolving, never-evolving coalition PR system, with bargaining between politicians after the election rather than between the politicians and the electorate before it.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
I presume he is back to looking like somebody out of Goldie Lookin Chain now the cameras aren't on him.
Well, more casual events would reasonably have more casual attire I guess. He looks like he's enjoying mainstream irrelevance, as factional devotion is much more satisfying.
Shelley was up himself to a ridiculous extent.
Plus bloody 1. Ozzy Mandy Arse is by several furlongs the most overrated poem in history.
Alien Covenant
The trick, Dr. Prasannan, is not minding that it hurts.
That was the previous film, Prometheus (quoting Lawrence of Arabia, of course!).
They are too dreary and useless to bother distinguishing between. I understand they have accepted this and won't be making any more.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
I presume he is back to looking like somebody out of Goldie Lookin Chain now the cameras aren't on him.
Well, more casual events would reasonably have more casual attire I guess. He looks like he's enjoying mainstream irrelevance, as factional devotion is much more satisfying.
Shelley was up himself to a ridiculous extent.
Plus bloody 1. Ozzy Mandy Arse is by several furlongs the most overrated poem in history.
Alien Covenant
The trick, Dr. Prasannan, is not minding that it hurts.
That was the previous film, Prometheus (quoting Lawrence of Arabia, of course!).
They are too dreary and useless to bother distinguishing between. I understand they have accepted this and won't be making any more.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
Still, @Stuartinromford is right. Too many of our politicians lack basic tradecraft. They can't make speeches, they can't answer questions, they can't understand the bills they are voting on. And with notable exceptions like Mrs Thatcher, they do not take advantage of training.
I'm less convinced. The age of deference has long passed - had we had Paxman-style questioning in the Heath/Wilson period I'm sure their weaknesses would have shone through. We expect every politician to answer authoritatively about every question every time and can immediately fact-check every answer via Google or Twitter.
We scoff if a politician says "I don't Know" and I imagien the media training says that's the cardinal sin but I actually think it would be honest. I'm rarely surprised by the depth of my own ignorance - I can't be alone.
I think a lot of the problem is that politicians routinely decline interviews so they never learn how to answer questions, or to not answer them without looking shifty and evasive. An hour's media training does not make up for 10 years of practice.
I opened a bottle of red I bought about four few years ago, a Malbec, that was buried in the back of my shed outside for a few years. A screwcap, when I opened it there was a bit of a fizzing sound almost like when opening a soft drink.
First sip of the wine was unpleasant. It had a rather acidic/fizzy taste to it.
Left the glass I'd poured for about 15 minutes, took another sip and it was quite pleasant this time.
I'm guessing somehow secondary fermentation or something had caused carbon dioxide in the bottle, which has now dissipated from the glass after being left to stand.
Do you know if its safe to drink? As far as I'm aware alcohol should prevent bacteria etc or any nasties?
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
I presume he is back to looking like somebody out of Goldie Lookin Chain now the cameras aren't on him.
Well, more casual events would reasonably have more casual attire I guess. He looks like he's enjoying mainstream irrelevance, as factional devotion is much more satisfying.
Shelley was up himself to a ridiculous extent.
Plus bloody 1. Ozzy Mandy Arse is by several furlongs the most overrated poem in history.
Alien Covenant
The trick, Dr. Prasannan, is not minding that it hurts.
That was the previous film, Prometheus (quoting Lawrence of Arabia, of course!).
They are too dreary and useless to bother distinguishing between. I understand they have accepted this and won't be making any more.
Just wondering, while dinner cooks, if there is any precedent for Mr Jenrick. I did come across this banning of toys for sick children in the Victorian workhouse. But on further scrutiny they were fine with toys - just that they shouldn't be bought with tax money but come out of "private liberality"; and in fact Government thought that was going too far. Now, spending money to paint over those cartoons ...
There was an Edwardian chap in that documentary about the first flying car, I believe it’s called “Chitty chitty bang bang”, who had a career making kids’ lives miserable. Never got his name but think he was referred to as “The child catcher” or something. Not the Jimmy Savile doc.
Some berk a few years ago banning books in prison...
I seemed to remember that was a similar thing. It wasn't a "book ban" as such, it was that small packages were being used to widely smuggle in contraband. So they banned all small packages being sent in from the outside without special permission, which then people said well that includes books.
Prisoners weren't banned from books from the prison library etc.
Rules restricting the number of books a prisoner can have have been overturned by Justice Secretary Michael Gove.
A limit of 12 books per cell has been removed, while relatives and friends can now send books to inmates directly.
The rule changes, affecting more than 80,000 inmates in England and Wales, are meant to help prepare inmates for work when released.
Mr Gove said those "languishing in prison" were "potential assets" who could be "productive and contribute".
The scrapping of the rules from 1 September is one of Mr Gove's first key changes to prison policy since being appointed as justice secretary.
The restriction on receiving books directly came as a result of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, introduced in November 2013 under Mr Gove's predecessor, Chris Grayling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33497581
The justice minister wrote: "It was never the case that prisoners were simply allowed unlimited parcels – books or otherwise … It would be a logistical impossibility to search them all, and they would provide an easy route for illegal materials. The only change over the past few months has been to ensure that all prisoners are treated the same. They can receive one parcel of essential items when they first arrive, but after that they can only get letters and cards from home, unless the circumstances are exceptional."
The move was defended as being not about a ban on books being sent into prison, but about parcels being sent in, as giving prisons access to the latter would almost certainly increase the amount of contraband getting into the prison estate.[49] The High Court ruled the ban illegal in December 2015.[50]
I have no idea if Grayling thought it through or not before he doubled down. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think it through when he introduced more restrictions on small parcels that it would be (spun) as banning books.
I opened a bottle of red I bought about four few years ago, a Malbec, that was buried in the back of my shed outside for a few years. A screwcap, when I opened it there was a bit of a fizzing sound almost like when opening a soft drink.
First sip of the wine was unpleasant. It had a rather acidic/fizzy taste to it.
Left the glass I'd poured for about 15 minutes, took another sip and it was quite pleasant this time.
I'm guessing somehow secondary fermentation or something had caused carbon dioxide in the bottle, which has now dissipated from the glass after being left to stand.
Do you know if its safe to drink? As far as I'm aware alcohol should prevent bacteria etc or any nasties?
Make it three bottles and you'll be unwell anyway. And you won't be worrying about it either.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
Hmm! The I seems to be saying that even Mr Farage thinks Mr Jenrick is mean.
With England's second innings to come, and England's top order being as useless as a marzipan dildo, there has to be a reasonable chance that 'Stokes since Sunday' climbs up that list further before the Test is over.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
Still, @Stuartinromford is right. Too many of our politicians lack basic tradecraft. They can't make speeches, they can't answer questions, they can't understand the bills they are voting on. And with notable exceptions like Mrs Thatcher, they do not take advantage of training.
I'm less convinced. The age of deference has long passed - had we had Paxman-style questioning in the Heath/Wilson period I'm sure their weaknesses would have shone through. We expect every politician to answer authoritatively about every question every time and can immediately fact-check every answer via Google or Twitter.
We scoff if a politician says "I don't Know" and I imagien the media training says that's the cardinal sin but I actually think it would be honest. I'm rarely surprised by the depth of my own ignorance - I can't be alone.
I think a lot of the problem is that politicians routinely decline interviews so they never learn how to answer questions, or to not answer them without looking shifty and evasive. An hour's media training does not make up for 10 years of practice.
There is no long form interview shows now, and nobody watches Newsnight. The likes of Sky News has tiny audience and QT is also dying on its arse, so there is absolutely no need to put yourself out there....then you hit the limelight and you are massively inexperienced.
Also the presenters are equally shit.
I always thought at very least we should have a QT type show with leaders and chancellors / their shadows, at least once a year.
I opened a bottle of red I bought about four few years ago, a Malbec, that was buried in the back of my shed outside for a few years. A screwcap, when I opened it there was a bit of a fizzing sound almost like when opening a soft drink.
First sip of the wine was unpleasant. It had a rather acidic/fizzy taste to it.
Left the glass I'd poured for about 15 minutes, took another sip and it was quite pleasant this time.
I'm guessing somehow secondary fermentation or something had caused carbon dioxide in the bottle, which has now dissipated from the glass after being left to stand.
Do you know if its safe to drink? As far as I'm aware alcohol should prevent bacteria etc or any nasties?
Make it three bottles and you'll be unwell anyway. And you won't be worrying about it either.
Some wines can have a bit of secondary fermentation that can give them a bit of a fizz. While in most cases this is undesirable bi can't think of any way this would di you any harm, it's perfectly safe to drink but may not be the best quality
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
Still, @Stuartinromford is right. Too many of our politicians lack basic tradecraft. They can't make speeches, they can't answer questions, they can't understand the bills they are voting on. And with notable exceptions like Mrs Thatcher, they do not take advantage of training.
It's because they don't need to do those things to get ahead. Speeches? 30 second clips or 10 second soundbites is all people will see. Answering questions? Everyone now expects them not to, so they don't even bother to learn how. Understanding legislation? No point, the party machines are still so powerful.
As fun as it was, I do fear we might not see Ben Stokes for much longer, saw him after close of play, and he's like an old man.
I don't think we'll see him cancel his retirement and play at the world cup this year.
An utter utter shame.
His legacy will need to live on - it doesn't always work, this series is showing that, but it has definitely gotten more out of the team than the same basic team managed before.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
Still, @Stuartinromford is right. Too many of our politicians lack basic tradecraft. They can't make speeches, they can't answer questions, they can't understand the bills they are voting on. And with notable exceptions like Mrs Thatcher, they do not take advantage of training.
It's because they don't need to do those things to get ahead. Speeches? 30 second clips or 10 second soundbites is all people will see. Answering questions? Everyone now expects them not to, so they don't even bother to learn how. Understanding legislation? No point, the party machines are still so powerful.
The most telling thing is when a politician repeats the same "talking point" 20 times in an interview....they don't care they come across as badly to the tiny number of people watching live, it is all about the far larger numbers who will see / hear the soundbite.
With England's second innings to come, and England's top order being as useless as a marzipan dildo, there has to be a reasonable chance that 'Stokes since Sunday' climbs up that list further before the Test is over.
How about pushing Stokes up the order? Then he can take singles, too?
Just wondering, while dinner cooks, if there is any precedent for Mr Jenrick. I did come across this banning of toys for sick children in the Victorian workhouse. But on further scrutiny they were fine with toys - just that they shouldn't be bought with tax money but come out of "private liberality"; and in fact Government thought that was going too far. Now, spending money to paint over those cartoons ...
There was an Edwardian chap in that documentary about the first flying car, I believe it’s called “Chitty chitty bang bang”, who had a career making kids’ lives miserable. Never got his name but think he was referred to as “The child catcher” or something. Not the Jimmy Savile doc.
Some berk a few years ago banning books in prison...
I seemed to remember that was a similar thing. It wasn't a "book ban" as such, it was that small packages were being used to widely smuggle in contraband. So they banned all small packages being sent in from the outside without special permission, which then people said well that includes books.
Prisoners weren't banned from books from the prison library etc.
Rules restricting the number of books a prisoner can have have been overturned by Justice Secretary Michael Gove.
A limit of 12 books per cell has been removed, while relatives and friends can now send books to inmates directly.
The rule changes, affecting more than 80,000 inmates in England and Wales, are meant to help prepare inmates for work when released.
Mr Gove said those "languishing in prison" were "potential assets" who could be "productive and contribute".
The scrapping of the rules from 1 September is one of Mr Gove's first key changes to prison policy since being appointed as justice secretary.
The restriction on receiving books directly came as a result of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, introduced in November 2013 under Mr Gove's predecessor, Chris Grayling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33497581
The justice minister wrote: "It was never the case that prisoners were simply allowed unlimited parcels – books or otherwise … It would be a logistical impossibility to search them all, and they would provide an easy route for illegal materials. The only change over the past few months has been to ensure that all prisoners are treated the same. They can receive one parcel of essential items when they first arrive, but after that they can only get letters and cards from home, unless the circumstances are exceptional."
The move was defended as being not about a ban on books being sent into prison, but about parcels being sent in, as giving prisons access to the latter would almost certainly increase the amount of contraband getting into the prison estate.[49] The High Court ruled the ban illegal in December 2015.[50]
I have no idea if Grayling thought it through or not before he doubled down. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think it through when he introduced more restrictions on small parcels that it would be (spun) as banning books.
Shame Grayling's transparent spin (which btw does not mention the limit on books in cells) was undone by Gove then.
Trump is not well and he looks like a million Wotsits bukkaked* all over him.
*If you do not know this word then do not google it ever.
Trump's incoherence, rambling rants, and malapropisms, are at the least on the level of Biden, if not appreciably worse in the latter two.
He's also, in overall terms, barely any younger than Biden, and would be older than Biden was when he became President if he takes office again in 2025.
How his heath is who the heck knows, but he seems to get away with it in part because of the sheer, frantic energy of his public statements and toddler like naivete make him seem much younger than Biden.
It's really really hard to get disbarred I believe. But given how frivolous many of the lawsuits in 2020 were, it feels like many more should be than have or will be.
BREAKING: Rudy Giuliani, a former Trump lawyer, should be disbarred over his frivolous lawsuits challenging the 2020 elections, a bar ethics panel said on Friday.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
Still, @Stuartinromford is right. Too many of our politicians lack basic tradecraft. They can't make speeches, they can't answer questions, they can't understand the bills they are voting on. And with notable exceptions like Mrs Thatcher, they do not take advantage of training.
It's because they don't need to do those things to get ahead. Speeches? 30 second clips or 10 second soundbites is all people will see. Answering questions? Everyone now expects them not to, so they don't even bother to learn how. Understanding legislation? No point, the party machines are still so powerful.
The most telling thing is when a politician repeats the same "talking point" 20 times in an interview....they don't care they come across as badly to the tiny number of people watching live, it is all about the far larger numbers who will see / hear the soundbite.
Conversely a similar thing is why we should be more forgiving of politicians seemingly telling the same story or joke a lot - since people will always have had go to anecdotes, it's just they weren't recorded and reported ad naseum.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
Starmer looks relaxed, human, and eminently electable in that clip.
The thing that gives me hope is that Starmer learns and gets better at stuff.
Not quickly, and it would obviously be better if he had started already ready. But so many of our recent political leaders (Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, May, EdM) had exactly the same faults at the end of their tenure as at the beginning. In extreme cases, they stopped growing sometime in their teenage years.
Do we have to go back to Thatcher for someone who clearly worked on their weaknesses and sought to do something about them?
Corbyn took David Cameron's mum's advice on wearing suits.
By the end he could be quite dapper. Certainly he was the more 'politician' looking in 2019.
Still, @Stuartinromford is right. Too many of our politicians lack basic tradecraft. They can't make speeches, they can't answer questions, they can't understand the bills they are voting on. And with notable exceptions like Mrs Thatcher, they do not take advantage of training.
It's because they don't need to do those things to get ahead. Speeches? 30 second clips or 10 second soundbites is all people will see. Answering questions? Everyone now expects them not to, so they don't even bother to learn how. Understanding legislation? No point, the party machines are still so powerful.
The most telling thing is when a politician repeats the same "talking point" 20 times in an interview....they don't care they come across as badly to the tiny number of people watching live, it is all about the far larger numbers who will see / hear the soundbite.
Conversely a similar thing is why we should be more forgiving of politicians seemingly telling the same story or joke a lot - since people will always have had go to anecdotes, it's just they weren't recorded and reported ad naseum.
Yes, though we should note this was Rishi Sunak's undoing in the leadership hustings against Liz Truss. She made local references in each opening speech. Rishi said exactly the same thing each time, which was fine for those in the live audience but not for tens of thousands of members watching each event livestreamed to their home. PMQs is about the clip for the news, except that partisans will make their own clips, and each leader's backbenchers in the chamber can see precisely what happened, which is why IDS was chopped.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
Can a pay rise below the rate of inflation be inflationary?
Wealthier households should have to pay more for the BBC, Richard Sharp has suggested in his first interview since standing down as chairman of the broadcaster.
Mr Sharp said the licence fee could be replaced by a tax on broadband bills or a household levy based on the value of the property as the current system of a flat fee is “regressive”.
Some People on Ozempic Lose the Desire to Drink. Scientists Are Asking Why.
I've often thought a lot of alcoholism is down to sugar cravings. Which, of course, ozempic blocks. I never had a sweet tooth, but since cutting back a lot on my drinking I've discovered one, to the point where I've started worrying more about my teeth rotting than my liver...
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Unberfuckenlevable. You know how I've been saying Google just doesn't work anymore? I've just googled that quote and clynes. No result. Variations therof: Still no relevant result. Do you have an origin for that quote?
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
If they are reduced to 120 MP's, they'll be doomed to irrelevance for 10, possibly 15 years. Despite what the hardcore Tories say.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Unberfuckenlevable. You know how I've been saying Google just doesn't work anymore? I've just googled that quote and clynes. No result. Variations therof: Still no relevant result. Do you have an origin for that quote?
It might not have been Clynes. It's quoted in Russell's Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906, which is downstairs in my study and I'm afraid I simply can't be arsed to go and fetch it.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
How can a pay increase below the rate of inflation be "inflationary"? Surely that is deflationary?
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Unberfuckenlevable. You know how I've been saying Google just doesn't work anymore? I've just googled that quote and clynes. No result. Variations therof: Still no relevant result. Do you have an origin for that quote?
Couldn't find that quote, but I did find that he said this, which maybe Ydoethur was getting mixed up with?
"‘Labour’s programme is the best bulwark against violent upheaval and class wars. Democratic government can be made effective in this country without bloodshed or violence. Labour’s policy is to bring about a more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth by constitutional means. This is neither Bolshevism nor Communism, but common sense and justice. This is Labour’s alternative to Reaction and Revolution.’"
Trump is not well and he looks like a million Wotsits bukkaked* all over him.
*If you do not know this word then do not google it ever.
In unrelated news, I note the Urban Dictionary home page has jumped on the Enshittification bandwagon.
It's struck a chord, because it's easy to grasp, and fairly obviously true.
While it started out strictly as a term to describe the decay of social media platforms, it works as a broader critique of an economic system that appears determined to squeeze consumers until the pip squeak by lowering the standard of their product, knowing they have nowhere else to go. I suspect that, to cut costs (or more accurately, to keep costs from skyrocketing even further) a lot of products have become enshittified in the last couple of years. People can see enshittification happening all around them.
Is there a word of the year, like SPOTY, we can bet on? If so, it's worth bunging a fiver on it now as it is the clear front runner.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
Anecdote. The school refused to pay for lettering to head our display boards. They didn't have the budget. An easy cut. So. Three TA's, who were in on strike day today, spent the afternoon downloading big, colourful, letters of the alphabet, printing them off, cutting them out, and then laminating them, and cutting them out again. A total of c.7 hours at minimum wage. And it wasn't finished.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Unberfuckenlevable. You know how I've been saying Google just doesn't work anymore? I've just googled that quote and clynes. No result. Variations therof: Still no relevant result. Do you have an origin for that quote?
It might not have been Clynes. It's quoted in Russell's Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906, which is downstairs in my study and I'm afraid I simply can't be arsed to go and fetch it.
Damn. It's in Google Books and has not got a "search inside" facility
Trump is not well and he looks like a million Wotsits bukkaked* all over him.
*If you do not know this word then do not google it ever.
In unrelated news, I note the Urban Dictionary home page has jumped on the Enshittification bandwagon.
It's struck a chord, because it's easy to grasp, and fairly obviously true.
While it started out strictly as a term to describe the decay of social media platforms, it works as a broader critique of an economic system that appears determined to squeeze consumers until the pip squeak by lowering the standard of their product, knowing they have nowhere else to go. I suspect that, to cut costs (or more accurately, to keep costs from skyrocketing even further) a lot of products have become enshittified in the last couple of years. People can see enshittification happening all around them.
Is there a word of the year, like SPOTY, we can bet on? If so, it's worth bunging a fiver on it now as it is the clear front runner.
I wouldn't bet on it. For obvious reasons, it circulates in a relatively limited set of media. I.e. you won't hear it on BBC News. Outside very online doomer writery types, I don't think it is that popular.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Unberfuckenlevable. You know how I've been saying Google just doesn't work anymore? I've just googled that quote and clynes. No result. Variations therof: Still no relevant result. Do you have an origin for that quote?
It might not have been Clynes. It's quoted in Russell's Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906, which is downstairs in my study and I'm afraid I simply can't be arsed to go and fetch it.
Damn. It's in Google Books and has not got a "search inside" facility
If memory serves it is on the final page, so easy enough to find.
I will try to remember to look it up for you tomorrow, if I have time.
It is a very interesting book in itself, that. Well worth reading.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
Can a pay rise below the rate of inflation be inflationary?
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Unberfuckenlevable. You know how I've been saying Google just doesn't work anymore? I've just googled that quote and clynes. No result. Variations therof: Still no relevant result. Do you have an origin for that quote?
It might not have been Clynes. It's quoted in Russell's Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906, which is downstairs in my study and I'm afraid I simply can't be arsed to go and fetch it.
Damn. It's in Google Books and has not got a "search inside" facility
If memory serves it is on the final page, so easy enough to find.
I will try to remember to look it up for you tomorrow, if I have time.
It is a very interesting book in itself, that. Well worth reading.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
Trying to leak this straight after the reinspection of the late Ruth Perry's school is utterly disgraceful, but unsurprising from these sociopaths.
Trump is not well and he looks like a million Wotsits bukkaked* all over him.
*If you do not know this word then do not google it ever.
In unrelated news, I note the Urban Dictionary home page has jumped on the Enshittification bandwagon.
It's struck a chord, because it's easy to grasp, and fairly obviously true.
While it started out strictly as a term to describe the decay of social media platforms, it works as a broader critique of an economic system that appears determined to squeeze consumers until the pip squeak by lowering the standard of their product, knowing they have nowhere else to go. I suspect that, to cut costs (or more accurately, to keep costs from skyrocketing even further) a lot of products have become enshittified in the last couple of years. People can see enshittification happening all around them.
Is there a word of the year, like SPOTY, we can bet on? If so, it's worth bunging a fiver on it now as it is the clear front runner.
I wouldn't bet on it. For obvious reasons, it circulates in a relatively limited set of media. I.e. you won't hear it on BBC News. Outside very online doomer writery types, I don't think it is that popular.
Has been all over Twitter and other social media this week, so if you're under the age of 50 and get most of your news that way... According to Ofcom, 7% of people get their news from Tiktok, and 39% of people age 16-24 cited one of the social media platforms as their main news source, with 46% getting it from, deep breath, Instagram.
As I say, the word strikes a chord, though I suspect this skews heavily towards a younger demographic who get their news from social media, rather than "doomer writery types". After all, the word was coined to explain why TikTok is no longer as good as it was (not that I'm on it...)
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
On the subject of OFSTED, this is a very quick turnaround:
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
Trying to leak this straight after the reinspection of the late Ruth Perry's school is utterly disgraceful, but unsurprising from these sociopaths.
@ydoethur@dixiedean and any other teachers. Would teachers accept no pay rise in exchange for the dismantling of Ofsted?
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Yes, could we see an eventual fusion of Reform and the Conservatives with more moderate Tories either disappearing or drifting off to the LDs?
I think it improbable but not impossible - there were plenty on here who thought Labour would schism after the 2010 election and only counterfactual historians muse on what would have happened if IDS had led the Conservatives in a 2005 election.
What you'd then have is a dominant centre-left force and two competing parties - one on the centre to centre-right and the other further to the right. Again, I don't consider it likely - the more likely scenario is the return of a Conservative Party very different to the current incarnation but far more relevant to 2030s Britain. There's plenty for room for example for environmental conservatism based on technological development combined with sustainability and offering individuals and communities choices on power consumption.
Wealthier households should have to pay more for the BBC, Richard Sharp has suggested in his first interview since standing down as chairman of the broadcaster.
Mr Sharp said the licence fee could be replaced by a tax on broadband bills or a household levy based on the value of the property as the current system of a flat fee is “regressive”.
So the rich should pay more to watch the telly and the poor more to park their car...
These's definitely a PB meme that poor people have more polluting cars... But is this true? The dirtiest cars are diesels, which tend to be larger vehicles, driven by richer people. Grateful for anyone who has actual evidence on this, rather than self-serving garbage.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Yes, could we see an eventual fusion of Reform and the Conservatives with more moderate Tories either disappearing or drifting off to the LDs?
I think it improbable but not impossible - there were plenty on here who thought Labour would schism after the 2010 election and only counterfactual historians muse on what would have happened if IDS had led the Conservatives in a 2005 election.
What you'd then have is a dominant centre-left force and two competing parties - one on the centre to centre-right and the other further to the right. Again, I don't consider it likely - the more likely scenario is the return of a Conservative Party very different to the current incarnation but far more relevant to 2030s Britain. There's plenty for room for example for environmental conservatism based on technological development combined with sustainability and offering individuals and communities choices on power consumption.
From your final sentence, can I suggest the description Zacservatives.
On topic: I find it hard to believe that there isn't something more to that story, since it seems so absurd. But then I don't know anything about Jenrick.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
On the subject of OFSTED, this is a very quick turnaround:
It is, but it's not unusual. Where a school has been judged inadequate, like this one, because of failings in safeguarding (e.g. not doing appropriate checks), then a quick fix is achievable. By contrast, if a school fails its Ofsted because of poor results and/or poor teaching, it takes much longer to turn around.
The debate hinges on whether safeguarding should be a "limiting grade" - i.e. if a school has inadequate safeguarding, should the leadership, and therefore the school as a whole, also be judged inadequate, regardless of the quality of teaching or test results.
Wealthier households should have to pay more for the BBC, Richard Sharp has suggested in his first interview since standing down as chairman of the broadcaster.
Mr Sharp said the licence fee could be replaced by a tax on broadband bills or a household levy based on the value of the property as the current system of a flat fee is “regressive”.
So the rich should pay more to watch the telly and the poor more to park their car...
These's definitely a PB meme that poor people have more polluting cars... But is this true? The dirtiest cars are diesels, which tend to be larger vehicles, driven by richer people. Grateful for anyone who has actual evidence on this, rather than self-serving garbage.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
Trying to leak this straight after the reinspection of the late Ruth Perry's school is utterly disgraceful, but unsurprising from these sociopaths.
@ydoethur@dixiedean and any other teachers. Would teachers accept no pay rise in exchange for the dismantling of Ofsted?
It isn't enough now. We're leaking staff like a bucket.
The ECTs at our place are saddled with 50-70k of debt. Underfunding is the main driver of workload, not actually Ofsted - they end up with ridiculous amounts of work and not enough time to do it. No wonder they leave whilst they are young and before they think about families and mortgages.
The more experienced normally tried to hang on, as they had little no no student debt, but people are changing careers, emigrating, taking paycuts to leave. This is more driven by Ofsted - if you're in a leadership role, you are far more vulnerable in the event of a poor Ofsted verdict.
It is a toxic combination of more than a decade of underfunding, heavy workload, over inspection, incurring debt to enter the profession and crap pay.
I do wonder whether this is fixable, it feels terminal.
According to ITV News Gillian Keegan wants to accept the independent pay review's 6.5% increase recommendation for teacher's pay. Rishi Rich currently believes it to be inflationary and is minded to reject the findings.
In a sense, that's irrelevant. This is now becoming wider than just pay. I doubt if 6.5% - which is well below inflation anyway - would be accepted without drastic reforms, particularly to OFSTED.
Trying to leak this straight after the reinspection of the late Ruth Perry's school is utterly disgraceful, but unsurprising from these sociopaths.
@ydoethur@dixiedean and any other teachers. Would teachers accept no pay rise in exchange for the dismantling of Ofsted?
I'm not sure it is OFSTED in principle. However. I'd accept no pay rise in exchange for. A funding rise in excess of inflation. So that we can order the things we need, within reason, without having to seek approval, which can take months, that we need. That includes things like chews for kids with pica. They aren't particularly pricey, but there are relatively few suppliers. The Education Authority simply won't bulk buy a thousand. So, we wait months. Meanwhile, we have constant disruption for sake of summat to stick in their mouth. This is a micro example replicated across the SENDMH sector. And. A decent pay rise for TA's. Which takes them at least to the levels of Aldi. And pays them for statutory breaks. That way we may be able to keep the very best, who are absolute angelic diamonds. And the competent. Rather than having to make do with the others who verge on the dangerous. Both of these would make my job so much less stressful.
On topic, the Tory party is turning into the GOP and I fear it will get even more extreme in opposition particularly if it led by those roasters Braverman or Badenoch.
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. If you end up with 120 Conservative MPs for example they will know they will be doomed to total irrelevance for at least two to three years.
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Yes, but even if they do not lose so severely to go-to move to defeat thesedays seems to be to double down the first time. So whilst they will evolve toward where the new opposition is, it seems improbable they will do so straight away, when they can concetrate on blaming Sunak and bigging up a return to 2019, but more so.
I don't disagree - it might take three defeats for the penny to finally drop - that would be 8 years (arguably nine for Labour this time) - and for tthe Party to realise principle is nothing without power. It's easier in Opposition to redefine and develop new policies - it may well be there's a viable conservative vision for the mid-21st century - it won't be the current incarnation of Conservatism but it will still draw on the old time-honoured foundations.
In 1906 the Unionists (now the Conservatives) were reduced to a mere 157 seats, not including their leader.
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Unberfuckenlevable. You know how I've been saying Google just doesn't work anymore? I've just googled that quote and clynes. No result. Variations therof: Still no relevant result. Do you have an origin for that quote?
I seem to remember that google has, for some time, been removing from it's results anything unmodified for more than 10 years. Doesn't matter if it's a copy of The Odyssey or a hot take by Twat2016TurmpW0zR0bbed.
Comments
OK that's pretty damned ingenious and hilarious. Well done him.
There's a simple way to reverse that and that is to win an election and repeal it.
Considering how Wisconsin law operates and precedence here, it seems entirely above board with their system.
Very fond memories of the Tap of Lauriston.
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9458453,-3.2023987,3a,90y,73.8h,84.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sginTuOqY0YsbifzGn-kLTQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
We scoff if a politician says "I don't Know" and I imagien the media training says that's the cardinal sin but I actually think it would be honest. I'm rarely surprised by the depth of my own ignorance - I can't be alone.
https://www.healthcareworkersinhiv.org.uk/interview-themes/responses-and-attitudes/health-prevention-response
Mission Impossible and the Dial of Destiny
https://twitter.com/backindeed/status/1677024659257040897?s=46
I opened a bottle of red I bought about four few years ago, a Malbec, that was buried in the back of my shed outside for a few years. A screwcap, when I opened it there was a bit of a fizzing sound almost like when opening a soft drink.
First sip of the wine was unpleasant. It had a rather acidic/fizzy taste to it.
Left the glass I'd poured for about 15 minutes, took another sip and it was quite pleasant this time.
I'm guessing somehow secondary fermentation or something had caused carbon dioxide in the bottle, which has now dissipated from the glass after being left to stand.
Do you know if its safe to drink? As far as I'm aware alcohol should prevent bacteria etc or any nasties?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/25/minister-rules-out-rethink-ban-sending-books-prisoners
The move was defended as being not about a ban on books being sent into prison, but about parcels being sent in, as giving prisons access to the latter would almost certainly increase the amount of contraband getting into the prison estate.[49] The High Court ruled the ban illegal in December 2015.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling
I have no idea if Grayling thought it through or not before he doubled down. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think it through when he introduced more restrictions on small parcels that it would be (spun) as banning books.
And you won't be worrying about it either.
1. Stokes - 38
2. Pietersen - 24
3. Botham - 20
4. Broad - 17
5. Flintoff - 15
6. Stokes since Sunday - 14
https://twitter.com/Yas_Wisden/status/1677311925993046018
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/
Also the presenters are equally shit.
I always thought at very least we should have a QT type show with leaders and chancellors / their shadows, at least once a year.
Trump: I will also order our government to deny entry to all communists and markers.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1677411503308443648
Trump is not well and he looks like a million Wotsits bukkaked* all over him.
*If you do not know this word then do not google it ever.
He's also, in overall terms, barely any younger than Biden, and would be older than Biden was when he became President if he takes office again in 2025.
How his heath is who the heck knows, but he seems to get away with it in part because of the sheer, frantic energy of his public statements and toddler like naivete make him seem much younger than Biden.
BREAKING: Rudy Giuliani, a former Trump lawyer, should be disbarred over his frivolous lawsuits challenging the 2020 elections, a bar ethics panel said on Friday.
“We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani's conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the DOJ...The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments."
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1677386659480870914?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
Even with a defeat of that scale, they will still be the only alternative Government on offer. However, Labour will spend the first five years blaming everything on the Conservative years so winning a second term shouldn't be too difficult and if the Conservatives are sub-150 MPs in 2029, the road looks even longer and steeper.
The truth is, as MacMillan always said, "events, dear boy, events" will precipitate change. Inevitably opposition to Labour will develop and coalesce and the intellectual nature of that opposition will cause the Conservatives to evolve toward where the new opposition is (or will be).
Was the marker aberration temporary, or is it permanent?
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-hits-out-at-bone-headed-ulez-despite-setting-up-the-scheme-while-he-was-london-mayor-12916924
A very wise Labour politician, I think it was Clynes, commented to a thoroughly over-excited colleague who foresaw a political realignment based on the Liberals and Labour being the two main parties, 'Reaction will survive. Reaction *always* survives.'
He then forecast that if Labour was to become a serious political force it was the Liberals that it would replace.
And he was right.
Some People on Ozempic Lose the Desire to Drink. Scientists Are Asking Why.
Mr Sharp said the licence fee could be replaced by a tax on broadband bills or a household levy based on the value of the property as the current system of a flat fee is “regressive”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/07/wealthier-households-pay-more-bbc-licence-fee-richard-sharp/
Bath car parking prices to be based on pollution levels of vehicle
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/local-news/bath-cdar-parking-prices-based-8573379
So the rich should pay more to watch the telly and the poor more to park their car...
Despite what the hardcore Tories say.
Surely that is deflationary?
"‘Labour’s programme is the best bulwark against violent upheaval and class wars. Democratic government can be made effective in this country without bloodshed or violence. Labour’s policy is to bring about a more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth by constitutional means. This is neither Bolshevism nor Communism, but common sense and justice. This is Labour’s alternative to Reaction and Revolution.’"
https://www.progressivebritain.org/a-century-which-proves-labour-only-wins-on-the-centre-ground/
While it started out strictly as a term to describe the decay of social media platforms, it works as a broader critique of an economic system that appears determined to squeeze consumers until the pip squeak by lowering the standard of their product, knowing they have nowhere else to go. I suspect that, to cut costs (or more accurately, to keep costs from skyrocketing even further) a lot of products have become enshittified in the last couple of years. People can see enshittification happening all around them.
Is there a word of the year, like SPOTY, we can bet on? If so, it's worth bunging a fiver on it now as it is the clear front runner.
The school refused to pay for lettering to head our display boards. They didn't have the
budget. An easy cut.
So.
Three TA's, who were in on strike day today, spent the afternoon downloading big, colourful, letters of the alphabet, printing them off, cutting them out, and then laminating them, and cutting them out again.
A total of c.7 hours at minimum wage. And it wasn't finished.
I will try to remember to look it up for you tomorrow, if I have time.
It is a very interesting book in itself, that. Well worth reading.
Poster for the Kyiv Book Fair 2023, apparently. Could really do with one of these.
Simple is nearly always the best.
As I say, the word strikes a chord, though I suspect this skews heavily towards a younger demographic who get their news from social media, rather than "doomer writery types". After all, the word was coined to explain why TikTok is no longer as good as it was (not that I'm on it...)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/07/new-ofsted-report-upgrades-ruth-perrys-school-to-good?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I think it improbable but not impossible - there were plenty on here who thought Labour would schism after the 2010 election and only counterfactual historians muse on what would have happened if IDS had led the Conservatives in a 2005 election.
What you'd then have is a dominant centre-left force and two competing parties - one on the centre to centre-right and the other further to the right. Again, I don't consider it likely - the more likely scenario is the return of a Conservative Party very different to the current incarnation but far more relevant to 2030s Britain. There's plenty for room for example for environmental conservatism based on technological development combined with sustainability and offering individuals and communities choices on power consumption.
The debate hinges on whether safeguarding should be a "limiting grade" - i.e. if a school has inadequate safeguarding, should the leadership, and therefore the school as a whole, also be judged inadequate, regardless of the quality of teaching or test results.
The ECTs at our place are saddled with 50-70k of debt. Underfunding is the main driver of workload, not actually Ofsted - they end up with ridiculous amounts of work and not enough time to do it. No wonder they leave whilst they are young and before they think about families and mortgages.
The more experienced normally tried to hang on, as they had little no no student debt, but people are changing careers, emigrating, taking paycuts to leave. This is more driven by Ofsted - if you're in a leadership role, you are far more vulnerable in the event of a poor Ofsted verdict.
It is a toxic combination of more than a decade of underfunding, heavy workload, over inspection, incurring debt to enter the profession and crap pay.
I do wonder whether this is fixable, it feels terminal.
However. I'd accept no pay rise in exchange for.
A funding rise in excess of inflation. So that we can order the things we need, within reason, without having to seek approval, which can take months, that we need. That includes things like chews for kids with pica. They aren't particularly pricey, but there are relatively few suppliers. The Education Authority simply won't bulk buy a thousand. So, we wait months. Meanwhile, we have constant disruption for sake of summat to stick in their mouth.
This is a micro example replicated across the SENDMH sector.
And. A decent pay rise for TA's. Which takes them at least to the levels of Aldi. And pays them for statutory breaks.
That way we may be able to keep the very best, who are absolute angelic diamonds.
And the competent.
Rather than having to make do with the others who verge on the dangerous.
Both of these would make my job so much less stressful.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/10/d5/22/10d5220d3409bbd65f73d5a9ebc3a341.jpg
New Thread