Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
The fertility rate is 0.9, the lowest in the world for a sovereign country.
Something else that they are doing right.
South Korea is an admirable society in many ways (creative, productive, resourceful, peaceful) but also a disaster in others - hence the demographic crisis
It’s like all the virtues and vices of East Asia are intensified in this one country
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
On topic, the RAAC story could easily have broken under the Blair/Brown administration - it is one of those "events", and doesn't reflect at all on the competence of the incumbent administration - but it will cause more political problems for the Conservatives because it's in the twilight of its period of office, and it helpfully plays into that crumbling narrative.
I have no doubt funding will be made available, quickly, to make any school to make it safe - but I expect a lot of temporary building closures simply because we won't have enough structural engineers to remediate them all at once.
Though the slowdown of the schools rebuilding programme under the Conservatives is how RAAC has shifted from a problem to a crisis.
RAAC was a perfectly reasonable material to use to build for a 30 year lifespan. What is inexcusable is to fail to plan replace those schools, hospitals and other buildings after those 30 years were up.
It's completely ridiculous to build something that only has a 30 year shelf life though. That's the mindset behind a lot of terrible decision making in the UK. Let me fix today's problems for today and let future generations worry about the future.
If you were going to build for that shelf life anyway, at least build in wood which would be cheaper and easier to replace.
Prefabricated? Yes, it would make sense. Basically WW1 and WW2 army huts.
There's nowt wrong with modern timber framed buildings. They're a little bit vulnerable to fire during the construction phase but once completed (and as long as future trades stick to the strict compartmentalisation systems and don't go drilling holes everywhere) they're as safe as any building and far cheaper and quicker to construct . I know most new Premier Inns have been TF for about a decade.
The DfE should follow the Pemier Inn / McDonald’s model of standardising a handful of designs for schools, with known materials, costs, and economies of scale, then build 100 of each design.
One thing that I don't understand at all is why the DfE is managing these projects, I assume the civil servants in it know about education (Ydoethur might disagree) not managing construction projects. Would it not be better if there was a department staffed entirely by people who know about construction projects, how to manage them, inspect them, cost them. Then when we need a new school/hospital etc the relevant department goes to them and says we need a new school it must have x classrooms of at least this size etc. Then leave it up to experts in construction to get the plans done and bids in.
What should happen, is that DfE hires a couple of dozen construction people to draw up plans based on requirements of the educators, then any new school is told to pick one of these five standardised designs, and contract a local builder to build it.
The costs come from every project being different, with huge architects’ fees, and local authorities / Acadamies all wanting their flagship building of steel and glass.
A Primary school is a really easy building to design. You need seven or eight classrooms, a kitchen, a library, a hall, 3 or 4 offices. Once the actual design has been done once, and one built, it saves a fortune to simply build another building exactly the same in the next county.
BR were doing exactly that in the 1960s and 1970s, knocking down old stations and replacing them with modular prefabs. LT too?
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Yes, in certain way.
The civil servant I spoke to was a modern, liberal progressive, young man. The civil servant who found the ammo buying unit appalling wasn’t a white Anglo Saxon from Oxbridge either.
They both had a different, newer version of the attitude you are talking about. They were Good People faced with people who are Not.
It is of interest to see how the old snowberries and attitudes have been smoothly adapted to the new, modern society we live in.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
I normally do, but as they, for the most part involve photographs of your lunch those photos then appear, loud and proud, on every response.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
I normally do, but as they for the most part involve photographs of your lunch those photos then appear, loud and proud, on every response.
There are others who do the same, yet they seem to avoid censure.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
I have something which might interest you bit of PR etc
Can you send me a PM and Ill send you details, your mail is blocked on the site
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
You can ignore users with a custom rule in uBlock Origin.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Perhaps because of all the issues there have been with attempting to ban breeds of dogs in the past. The Dangerous Dogs Act is almost synonymous these days with badly thought, knee jerk legislation.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
I normally do, but as they, for the most part involve photographs of your lunch those photos then appear, loud and proud, on every response.
Well you’ve now successfully followed my hijack attempt, to the extent you’ve gone beyond the EVIL KILLER DOGS and made this thread all about ME, which is nice, as I clearly like attention
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Definition of breed that will hold up in law. (Vide DDA IIRC.)
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Funny you should say that. And I have just been lured into your tangential world. A young guy has just walked past me with a child in one arm and his Staffy on a lead in the other. I was minded to ask "do you not realise that your dog is most likely working out how best to tear your child's face off, as we speak". Insanity! And Bully XLs? They could swallow the child whole.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Definition of breed that will hold up in law. (Vide DDA IIRC.)
Existing laws about dogs out of control, etc.
But that’s not the explanation they offer, unless I’ve missed it. Also they have happily and successfully banned other breeds
They really do need to get a wiggle on, because eventually - maybe soon - these dogs are gonna kill some kids in a ghastly way - and it will be captured hideously on camera - and then ministers will lose careers
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Being a Subject Matter Expert is great. You can have an important role without having to do any actual graft.
The downside is the realisation that younger colleagues probably see me as some manner of kindly uncle, passing on snippets of advice and offering them a biscuit.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Maybe because if they have this discussion they will realise that whilst the dogs are difficult the owners are even bigger problems.
It will be too hard to push the necessary but obvious new law through that is a twofer where the dog gets banned and the owner gets locked up despite not only dog attack stats going down but also loads of other crimes go down when the owners are behind bars.
On topic, the RAAC story could easily have broken under the Blair/Brown administration - it is one of those "events", and doesn't reflect at all on the competence of the incumbent administration - but it will cause more political problems for the Conservatives because it's in the twilight of its period of office, and it helpfully plays into that crumbling narrative.
I have no doubt funding will be made available, quickly, to make any school to make it safe - but I expect a lot of temporary building closures simply because we won't have enough structural engineers to remediate them all at once.
Though the slowdown of the schools rebuilding programme under the Conservatives is how RAAC has shifted from a problem to a crisis.
RAAC was a perfectly reasonable material to use to build for a 30 year lifespan. What is inexcusable is to fail to plan replace those schools, hospitals and other buildings after those 30 years were up.
It's completely ridiculous to build something that only has a 30 year shelf life though. That's the mindset behind a lot of terrible decision making in the UK. Let me fix today's problems for today and let future generations worry about the future.
If you were going to build for that shelf life anyway, at least build in wood which would be cheaper and easier to replace.
Prefabricated? Yes, it would make sense. Basically WW1 and WW2 army huts.
There's nowt wrong with modern timber framed buildings. They're a little bit vulnerable to fire during the construction phase but once completed (and as long as future trades stick to the strict compartmentalisation systems and don't go drilling holes everywhere) they're as safe as any building and far cheaper and quicker to construct . I know most new Premier Inns have been TF for about a decade.
The DfE should follow the Pemier Inn / McDonald’s model of standardising a handful of designs for schools, with known materials, costs, and economies of scale, then build 100 of each design.
One thing that I don't understand at all is why the DfE is managing these projects, I assume the civil servants in it know about education (Ydoethur might disagree) not managing construction projects. Would it not be better if there was a department staffed entirely by people who know about construction projects, how to manage them, inspect them, cost them. Then when we need a new school/hospital etc the relevant department goes to them and says we need a new school it must have x classrooms of at least this size etc. Then leave it up to experts in construction to get the plans done and bids in.
What should happen, is that DfE hires a couple of dozen construction people to draw up plans based on requirements of the educators, then any new school is told to pick one of these five standardised designs, and contract a local builder to build it.
The costs come from every project being different, with huge architects’ fees, and local authorities / Acadamies all wanting their flagship building of steel and glass.
A Primary school is a really easy building to design. You need seven or eight classrooms, a kitchen, a library, a hall, 3 or 4 offices. Once the actual design has been done once, and one built, it saves a fortune to simply build another building exactly the same in the next county.
BR were doing exactly that in the 1960s and 1970s, knocking down old stations and replacing them with modular prefabs. LT too?
And every county council had in-house architects, many of who were pretty good at their jobs. After all, London should look different to Cornwall.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
I have something which might interest you bit of PR etc
Can you send me a PM and Ill send you details, your mail is blocked on the site
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Definition of breed that will hold up in law. (Vide DDA IIRC.)
Existing laws about dogs out of control, etc.
As Orwell might have said "All dogs can be dangerous; some are more likely to be than others!"
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
I normally do, but as they, for the most part involve photographs of your lunch those photos then appear, loud and proud, on every response.
Well you’ve now successfully followed my hijack attempt, to the extent you’ve gone beyond the EVIL KILLER DOGS and made this thread all about ME, which is nice, as I clearly like attention
That even happens when you aren't here.
Incidentally, before I typed "here", autocomplete suggested "masquerading". It is cleverer than we realise.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Yes, in certain way.
The civil servant I spoke to was a modern, liberal progressive, young man. The civil servant who found the ammo buying unit appalling wasn’t a white Anglo Saxon from Oxbridge either.
They both had a different, newer version of the attitude you are talking about. They were Good People faced with people who are Not.
It is of interest to see how the old snowberries and attitudes have been smoothly adapted to the new, modern society we live in.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Being a Subject Matter Expert is great. You can have an important role without having to do any actual graft.
The downside is the realisation that younger colleagues probably see me as some manner of kindly uncle, passing on snippets of advice and offering them a biscuit.
Or that gnarled old detective who won't swap the sharp end for a desk and a promotion. A thorn in the side of his smooth political boss.
"Just close it, Tom, I've got the ACC on my back."
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Definition of breed that will hold up in law. (Vide DDA IIRC.)
Existing laws about dogs out of control, etc.
But that’s not the explanation they offer, unless I’ve missed it. Also they have happily and successfully banned other breeds
They really do need to get a wiggle on, because eventually - maybe soon - these dogs are gonna kill some kids in a ghastly way - and it will be captured hideously on camera - and then ministers will lose careers
A neighbour of the in-laws was involved in a XL Bully breeding business as they were selling for silly money during the pandemic. Bought in some dogs from Romania (or somewhere like that) for about £500 each. I hate to think what the place they came from was like.
Even had a van painted up (which looked as bad as you might expect).
Anyway, he's been left with one as there's no demand now. It eats half a cow weekly and doesn't come out much, presumably because it might decide to snack on a child or two.
He also has a Lab which of course is perfectly well behaved.
I have no idea why they haven't been banned, although no doubt someone would breed something very slightly different and give it a different name.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Yes, in certain way.
The civil servant I spoke to was a modern, liberal progressive, young man. The civil servant who found the ammo buying unit appalling wasn’t a white Anglo Saxon from Oxbridge either.
They both had a different, newer version of the attitude you are talking about. They were Good People faced with people who are Not.
It is of interest to see how the old snowberries and attitudes have been smoothly adapted to the new, modern society we live in.
Hence why a 'meritocracy' is no dream of mine.
Actually a meritocracy is a perfectly sensible dream. Like all dreams it can become a nightmare.
The problem comes when people think that a simple set of rules can change human behaviour. Doing this often changes the “skin” on the organisation without creating real change.
Every police officer involved in strip searching minority school girls has done their diversity courses. Their senior officers have all got abstract perspex awards in expensive cabinets, testifying to how all their subordinates have been trained in being diverse.
Changing human behaviour involves teaching humans a new pattern of thinking. Which is hard. Once again, hat tip to @Cyclefree
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
Going off topic under the line? What has PB become?
I have accepted that none of us adhere to the script, in my post. But Leon is like the candidate taking an exam, who scrubs out the exam board question, substitutes his own and answers it.
You know, you can always…. Ignore my comments? Then they wouldn’t successfully hijack threads. Have you considered that?
I have something which might interest you bit of PR etc
Can you send me a PM and Ill send you details, your mail is blocked on the site
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Being a Subject Matter Expert is great. You can have an important role without having to do any actual graft.
The downside is the realisation that younger colleagues probably see me as some manner of kindly uncle, passing on snippets of advice and offering them a biscuit.
Or that gnarled old detective who won't swap the sharp end for a desk and a promotion. A thorn in the side of his smooth political boss.
"Just close it, Tom, I've got the ACC on my back."
There’s a genre of stories about police officers on their last days before retirement.
One excellent one is hearing a call on the radio. The station car park is empty. Apart from the top of the line car that one of the SMT uses as a personal car - but is still nominally a police car. And woe before any who touches it….
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Maybe because if they have this discussion they will realise that whilst the dogs are difficult the owners are even bigger problems.
It will be too hard to push the necessary but obvious new law through that is a twofer where the dog gets banned and the owner gets locked up despite not only dog attack stats going down but also loads of other crimes go down when the owners are behind bars.
I’d say charge the owner as if they committed the actions the dog did.
So if your dog kills someone, you’re looking at murder.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Being a Subject Matter Expert is great. You can have an important role without having to do any actual graft.
The downside is the realisation that younger colleagues probably see me as some manner of kindly uncle, passing on snippets of advice and offering them a biscuit.
Or that gnarled old detective who won't swap the sharp end for a desk and a promotion. A thorn in the side of his smooth political boss.
"Just close it, Tom, I've got the ACC on my back."
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Being a Subject Matter Expert is great. You can have an important role without having to do any actual graft.
The downside is the realisation that younger colleagues probably see me as some manner of kindly uncle, passing on snippets of advice and offering them a biscuit.
Or that gnarled old detective who won't swap the sharp end for a desk and a promotion. A thorn in the side of his smooth political boss.
"Just close it, Tom, I've got the ACC on my back."
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
The precise definition of a particular dog breed was the root of the problem with the DDA 1991. Defining a breed for the purposes of denying insurance, requires a very different standard to a definition that can be used to prosecute people.
Pre-Trump, most successful Republican politicians understood that it was good politics to be seen improving public schools schools. Ronald Reagan, for instance, commissioned the "A Nation at Risk" study, George H. W. Bush promised to be the education president, and George W. Bush produced the "No Child Left Behind" act.
The gains on the NAEP, until recently, show that their efforts have had some success.
These efforts appealed to moderate swing voters, for example "soccer moms', as they are called here in the US. So improving public schools has been both good policy, and good politics for many Republicans.
What some of the commenters here seem to be saying is that the same is not true for the UK's Conservatives.
Or am I misunderstanding the arguments being made?
(The Democrats have an alliance with the teacher's unions -- which makes it far more difficult for them to advocate education reforms.)
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Yes, in certain way.
The civil servant I spoke to was a modern, liberal progressive, young man. The civil servant who found the ammo buying unit appalling wasn’t a white Anglo Saxon from Oxbridge either.
They both had a different, newer version of the attitude you are talking about. They were Good People faced with people who are Not.
It is of interest to see how the old snowberries and attitudes have been smoothly adapted to the new, modern society we live in.
Hence why a 'meritocracy' is no dream of mine.
Actually a meritocracy is a perfectly sensible dream. Like all dreams it can become a nightmare.
The problem comes when people think that a simple set of rules can change human behaviour. Doing this often changes the “skin” on the organisation without creating real change.
Every police officer involved in strip searching minority school girls has done their diversity courses. Their senior officers have all got abstract perspex awards in expensive cabinets, testifying to how all their subordinates have been trained in being diverse.
Changing human behaviour involves teaching humans a new pattern of thinking. Which is hard. Once again, hat tip to @Cyclefree
It is hard. Eg when diversity training (and the like) seeks to go beyond tick box and actually get people to think seriously about things like structural racism, white privilege, the patriarchy, misogyny etc there is much resistance. Why? Because when done properly it becomes about challenging ingrained patterns of thinking. This is tough and uncomfortable. Most people would rather not.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
The precise definition of a particular dog breed was the root of the problem with the DDA 1991. Defining a breed for the purposes of denying insurance, requires a very different standard to a definition that can be used to prosecute people.
And yet Australia has a highly successful, popular ban on XL Bullies - and others - framed this way:
“Australia has a ban on aggressive dog breeds that were specifically bred for fighting. Importing these breeds to Australia is not permitted by law. This ban is in place to safeguard the public and other animals. Dog breeds that are banned in Australia are:
Pit Bull Terrier breeds, including American Pit Bull Terrier Dogo Argentino Fila Brasileiro Japanese Tosa Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario The ban also extends to mix breeds of these breeds and to dogs that display any visible characteristics of the breeds mentioned above.”
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
I keep pointing this out: it's neoliberalism. For years we've deluded ourselves that you can have low tax high social security, and we've patched the gap with PFI, debt and maintenance reduction. But now all the bills are arriving and neither Starmer nor Sunak understand that they have to be paid.
Under Butskellian we had tax and spend. And for about a third of a century it worked. And then it stopped Then under neoliberalism we had spend but no tax. And for about a third of a century it worked. And then it stopped. Now we have two options: more tax and less spend, or stimulate growth by importing millions of people.
The Govt has chosen the latter because it doesn't care about the working class.
--snip-- Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Somedays I think like that. But the next day I will think "What's the big deal about landfill? Scotland is not short of big empty holes in the ground like old mines and old quarries"
--snip-- Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Somedays I think like that. But the next day I will think "What's the big deal about landfill? Scotland is not short of big empty holes in the ground like old mines and old quarries"
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
Don't get his maths at all there. A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90. 8 points about 45. Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
--snip-- Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Somedays I think like that. But the next day I will think "What's the big deal about landfill? Scotland is not short of big empty holes in the ground like old mines and old quarries"
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Maybe because if they have this discussion they will realise that whilst the dogs are difficult the owners are even bigger problems.
It will be too hard to push the necessary but obvious new law through that is a twofer where the dog gets banned and the owner gets locked up despite not only dog attack stats going down but also loads of other crimes go down when the owners are behind bars.
I’d say charge the owner as if they committed the actions the dog did.
So if your dog kills someone, you’re looking at murder.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Maybe because if they have this discussion they will realise that whilst the dogs are difficult the owners are even bigger problems.
It will be too hard to push the necessary but obvious new law through that is a twofer where the dog gets banned and the owner gets locked up despite not only dog attack stats going down but also loads of other crimes go down when the owners are behind bars.
I’d say charge the owner as if they committed the actions the dog did.
So if your dog kills someone, you’re looking at murder.
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
On topic, the RAAC story could easily have broken under the Blair/Brown administration - it is one of those "events", and doesn't reflect at all on the competence of the incumbent administration - but it will cause more political problems for the Conservatives because it's in the twilight of its period of office, and it helpfully plays into that crumbling narrative.
I have no doubt funding will be made available, quickly, to make any school to make it safe - but I expect a lot of temporary building closures simply because we won't have enough structural engineers to remediate them all at once.
Though the slowdown of the schools rebuilding programme under the Conservatives is how RAAC has shifted from a problem to a crisis.
RAAC was a perfectly reasonable material to use to build for a 30 year lifespan. What is inexcusable is to fail to plan replace those schools, hospitals and other buildings after those 30 years were up.
It's completely ridiculous to build something that only has a 30 year shelf life though. That's the mindset behind a lot of terrible decision making in the UK. Let me fix today's problems for today and let future generations worry about the future.
If you were going to build for that shelf life anyway, at least build in wood which would be cheaper and easier to replace.
Prefabricated? Yes, it would make sense. Basically WW1 and WW2 army huts.
There's nowt wrong with modern timber framed buildings. They're a little bit vulnerable to fire during the construction phase but once completed (and as long as future trades stick to the strict compartmentalisation systems and don't go drilling holes everywhere) they're as safe as any building and far cheaper and quicker to construct . I know most new Premier Inns have been TF for about a decade.
The DfE should follow the Pemier Inn / McDonald’s model of standardising a handful of designs for schools, with known materials, costs, and economies of scale, then build 100 of each design.
One thing that I don't understand at all is why the DfE is managing these projects, I assume the civil servants in it know about education (Ydoethur might disagree) not managing construction projects. Would it not be better if there was a department staffed entirely by people who know about construction projects, how to manage them, inspect them, cost them. Then when we need a new school/hospital etc the relevant department goes to them and says we need a new school it must have x classrooms of at least this size etc. Then leave it up to experts in construction to get the plans done and bids in.
What should happen, is that DfE hires a couple of dozen construction people to draw up plans based on requirements of the educators, then any new school is told to pick one of these five standardised designs, and contract a local builder to build it.
The costs come from every project being different, with huge architects’ fees, and local authorities / Acadamies all wanting their flagship building of steel and glass.
A Primary school is a really easy building to design. You need seven or eight classrooms, a kitchen, a library, a hall, 3 or 4 offices. Once the actual design has been done once, and one built, it saves a fortune to simply build another building exactly the same in the next county.
BR were doing exactly that in the 1960s and 1970s, knocking down old stations and replacing them with modular prefabs. LT too?
And every county council had in-house architects, many of who were pretty good at their jobs. After all, London should look different to Cornwall.
But we decided to gut local government because we didn't want to pay for it.
People want local government to be as cheap as possible (there did used to be plenty of dead waste to cut), but since the average person thinks councils do nothing but waste collection and some road maintenance, there is political support to just cut it well beyond what is reasonable.
Which means councils cannot do much else than their statutory duties (or not even that in some cases), mostly on adult social care, which then means people ask further what do councils even do for all their money, it should be cut even more, which means they can do less, which means it should be cut even more, etc etc
--snip-- Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Somedays I think like that. But the next day I will think "What's the big deal about landfill? Scotland is not short of big empty holes in the ground like old mines and old quarries"
Is landfill bad? I’m not even sure what it IS
A source of methane emissions which are a shit load worse than CO2. Of course, you can try to collect it and use it as fuel.
Energy from Waste, with carbon capture, is net negative, since around half of the CO2 is biogenic. Plus you still have energy left over to export to the grid.
And I mean properly net negative, not something dodgy involving felling trees in Canada to make wood pellets.
Get rid of waste, provide leccy, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Sounds like a triple win. And better than landfill.
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
I think Scotland might be uniquely bad. Or at least Glasgow. Which could be firing @malcolmg’s anger
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the UK
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
I don't think this school thing is going to play a role in the election.
Most things don't. In isolation nearly everything won't be referenced or even explicitly remembered. As ever its the crushing weight of stories that forms the impressions.
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
I think Scotland might be uniquely bad. Or at least Glasgow. Which could be firing @malcolmg’s anger
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the UK
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
Not much litter in round here (north Dorset) tbh. The towns and villages are all pretty much litter-free. We did have a problem with KFC and McD bags being chucked into verges by kids in cars but that seems to have largely died out (have the fast-food outlets done something to help at last?).
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
Don't get his maths at all there. A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90. 8 points about 45. Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Big question is why did successive governments over the years believe that ignoring the fact that this crumbly concrete from the 1970s with a 40 years shelf life was going to be 40 years old very soon was a good way of dealing with the problem?
Labour took power in 1997 and saw there was an almighty lot of crumbling facilities that needed replacing. The bill to do so was £lots and the available cash was £less so out came PFI.
So many of these PFI contracts were bad - but all of them could have been renegotiated / scrapped. The Tories argued against them in opposition then did more when put back into office (so hypocrisy on a grand scale), but at no point have they actually proposed to spend the money needed to build on the scale required.
Yes, they say they are building 40 new hospitals. But its almost a national joke that they're not. Yet we have hospitals literally held up by emergency props and schools the same. They scrapped the previous school-building program (as problematic as that was) and replaced it with Zahawi reportedly sweeping away emergency reports of schools ready to collapse.
So whilst it has ben successive governments, they have all been Tory.
I thought PFI was one of John Major’s initiatives, and it was Labour that once it got into office saw the opportunity and embraced it eagerly?
The fertility rate is 0.9, the lowest in the world for a sovereign country.
Something else that they are doing right.
South Korea is an admirable society in many ways (creative, productive, resourceful, peaceful) but also a disaster in others - hence the demographic crisis
It’s like all the virtues and vices of East Asia are intensified in this one country
Toxic masculinity, baked in by five centuries of culture. (Some of which inherited from China.)
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
I think Scotland might be uniquely bad. Or at least Glasgow. Which could be firing @malcolmg’s anger
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the U
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
I work in Glasgow. Don't know what you are on about. All the long-standing gaps in the city centre "grid" are being filled in and there is a lot of new development along the river. Ever been to the North end of Blackpool recently?
If one of these schools collapses you're looking at another Aberfan. Incredible that they seem willing to risk that. Other people's kids.
Aberfan happened under a Labour government.
Factually true. But nonetheless an absolutely ridiculous and quite frankly offensive partisan post. I have never heard anyone party politicise the Aberfan disaster before today.
Are you actually aware of the circumstances around that tragedy?
What I find fascinating about Aberfan is this -
The moment the NCB came into existence, the appointees - socialists, trade union officials and others of like kind - who ran it adopted the behaviours of Victorian mine owners.
The long slow build up to the disaster, where they adopted the previous policy of managing the slag heaps. The continuation, and worsening of he policy. The reaction to the disaster. The protection of the guilty.
Truly
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Read the story. The exact same attitudes and actions are there in all the scandals we have talked of recently. The Post Office scandal especially comes to mind, for some reason.
It’s not party political. And until we change some things (see @Cyclefree ‘s various headers) they will continue.
I agree but what will change and what will trigger it ?
I just cannot see it. I don’t doubt Starmer is a decent person but I have no doubt Labour, if they hold power for a prolonged period of time, will turn out to be just as venal, self serving and corrupt as the current lot.
After all that is exactly what happened with the Blair/Brown regime.
Johnson didn't require a prolonged period in power to become self-serving and corrupt. He hit the ground running.
History may not repeat but it certainly does rhyme.
Once again we see society crumbing, schools actually falling apart, NHS on its face and the economy in a hole.
New Labour may not have been perfect but it did repair those schools, it did reduce NHS waiting lists to the lowest ever and had the highest NHS satisfaction of all time.
Starmer may not achieve all of his goals - but if he can achieve any of those he will be more objectively useful for the country than any PM since Blair.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
I do have a lot of respect for some Big Picture people I know, who in short time are able to absorb briefing on the key issues and options on a matter from the experts, and make appropriate decisions as a result which I appreciate I would struggle to weigh up all the competing factors and pressures. But the key is they do get given the detail.
But for others as you say it can easily cross over to an actual disdain for detail. You see it in a culture where they object to being provided detailed information in the first place, and actually get pretty shirty if people try to ensure they do, possibly because that then undercuts a future defence for a wrong decision by claiming they did not have all the information. They might make decisions on the fly without even asking someone about the detail, assuming it is all fine, and then forcing the experts to try to make it work, when asking in advance would obviate the need to scrabble around like that.
Sure, those at the top do need information provided in concise format, Cabinet Ministers asking for shorter briefing summaries for example is not inherently wrong, but it cannot be a hard rule, as sometimes as you say you cannot get an accurate picture without the detail.
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
Don't get his maths at all there. A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90. 8 points about 45. Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
Combating complacency.
Well maybe. His figures are based on Scotland remaining the same. And UNS. We know that neither are happening. To get a majority Labour need c.6% lead. The Tories c.3%. That's leaving aside that Labour needs a much smaller seat total than 325, or the Tories, to form the next government. Which is my definition of "winning".
The fertility rate is 0.9, the lowest in the world for a sovereign country.
Something else that they are doing right.
South Korea is an admirable society in many ways (creative, productive, resourceful, peaceful) but also a disaster in others - hence the demographic crisis
It’s like all the virtues and vices of East Asia are intensified in this one country
Toxic masculinity, baked in by five centuries of culture.
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
Don't get his maths at all there. A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90. 8 points about 45. Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
Absent big gains in Scotland from the SNP even an 8 point Labour lead gives no majority
The fertility rate is 0.9, the lowest in the world for a sovereign country.
Something else that they are doing right.
South Korea is an admirable society in many ways (creative, productive, resourceful, peaceful) but also a disaster in others - hence the demographic crisis
It’s like all the virtues and vices of East Asia are intensified in this one country
Toxic masculinity, baked in by five centuries of culture. (Some of which inherited from China.)
Korean romantic dramas do seem to engage in an awful lot of negging and male leads treating a female lead like crap until for some reason the latter become obsessed with them, which can cause dissonance for the viewer.
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
Don't get his maths at all there. A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90. 8 points about 45. Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
Absent big gains in Scotland from the SNP even an 8 point Labour lead gives no majority
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
Don't get his maths at all there. A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90. 8 points about 45. Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
Absent big gains in Scotland from the SNP even an 8 point Labour lead gives no majority
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
I think Scotland might be uniquely bad. Or at least Glasgow. Which could be firing @malcolmg’s anger
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the U
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
I work in Glasgow. Don't know what you are on about. All the long-standing gaps in the city centre "grid" are being filled in and there is a lot of new development along the river. Ever been to the North end of Blackpool recently?
I'm happy to hear my friend is wrong!
I am - literally - just relaying what he said. He's not an anti-Nat or a Scotchophobe, he's a centrist Remainery businessman who went there for his work, and was astonished, in a bad way. Maybe he got unlucky?
History may not repeat but it certainly does rhyme.
Once again we see society crumbing, schools actually falling apart, NHS on its face and the economy in a hole.
New Labour may not have been perfect but it did repair those schools, it did reduce NHS waiting lists to the lowest ever and had the highest NHS satisfaction of all time.
Starmer may not achieve all of his goals - but if he can achieve any of those he will be more objectively useful for the country than any PM since Blair.
Running a country is hard, my base level expectation is that a PM have a mixed record and at worse slightly crappy overall.
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
I think Scotland might be uniquely bad. Or at least Glasgow. Which could be firing @malcolmg’s anger
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the UK
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
What are the chances that he hooked up with someone who trawls the internet looking for context-free pics of a decayed & deprived Glasgow? Amazing!
I had cause to walk the length of Kingsland Rd E2 a few weeks ago, and while it was interesting, vibrant etc, it was also manky as fck. Cities tend to be like that.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
Yes, in certain way.
The civil servant I spoke to was a modern, liberal progressive, young man. The civil servant who found the ammo buying unit appalling wasn’t a white Anglo Saxon from Oxbridge either.
They both had a different, newer version of the attitude you are talking about. They were Good People faced with people who are Not.
It is of interest to see how the old snowberries and attitudes have been smoothly adapted to the new, modern society we live in.
Hence why a 'meritocracy' is no dream of mine.
Actually a meritocracy is a perfectly sensible dream. Like all dreams it can become a nightmare.
The problem comes when people think that a simple set of rules can change human behaviour. Doing this often changes the “skin” on the organisation without creating real change.
Every police officer involved in strip searching minority school girls has done their diversity courses. Their senior officers have all got abstract perspex awards in expensive cabinets, testifying to how all their subordinates have been trained in being diverse.
Changing human behaviour involves teaching humans a new pattern of thinking. Which is hard. Once again, hat tip to @Cyclefree
I think it's a little simpler than that. One must ensure that the consequences of the desirable actions are more pleasant than the consequences of continuing with the undesirable behaviour. Do this, and your training will work. Neglect to do it, and it won't work.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Maybe because if they have this discussion they will realise that whilst the dogs are difficult the owners are even bigger problems.
It will be too hard to push the necessary but obvious new law through that is a twofer where the dog gets banned and the owner gets locked up despite not only dog attack stats going down but also loads of other crimes go down when the owners are behind bars.
I’d say charge the owner as if they committed the actions the dog did.
So if your dog kills someone, you’re looking at murder.
What about when it takes a dump on the pavement?
Same as when a human does it.
An animal isn’t a moral agent. The owner/keeper is the moral agent on its behalf.
Lord Blunkett '“People say to me, ‘Is this going to be a 1997 moment where we have an avalanche, or is it going to be a 1992 moment when a government pulls victory out of the jaws of defeat?’ I think it’s going to be neither; I think it’s going to be a 1964 moment.”
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
Don't get his maths at all there. A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90. 8 points about 45. Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
Absent big gains in Scotland from the SNP even an 8 point Labour lead gives no majority
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
I think Scotland might be uniquely bad. Or at least Glasgow. Which could be firing @malcolmg’s anger
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the UK
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
What are the chances that he hooked up with someone who trawls the internet looking for context-free pics of a decayed & deprived Glasgow? Amazing!
I had cause to walk the length of Kingsland Rd E2 a few weeks ago, and while it was interesting, vibrant etc, it was also manky as fck. Cities tend to be like that.
Believe it or not, you're entirely wrong. I don't WANT Glasgow to be a cesspit just to score points off the Nats. I may do that on here for bantz but I am a proud Briton, and Glasgow is a proud city in Britain. I want every part of the country to prosper and look good
Also, Glasgow is a great city, I know it quite well. Beautiful Victorian buildings, 2nd city of the empire and all that, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Alisdair Gray's Lanark, it's full of character and noble architecture and the people are genuinely funny. Couldn't live there coz of the wintry dark but nonetheless I admire it, it's like a Scottish Newcastle but possibly grander. I don't like to think of it in decay
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
I'm still waiting for Calder to get a fatal case of Covid so I can win the PB death pool.
On improving education: It doesn't all happen in schools. Obviously.
And not all the teachers need to have formal training. For example: "Growing up with a dog can teach kids a lot—responsibility, empathy, logistics, and fun. Kids who grow up with dogs often report loving their dogs more than they love their siblings! Dogs are sources of unconditional love, support, and a respite from the difficulties even young children face.
I think that it is easier to learn how to get along with most dogs than most humans -- and that the lessons learned from getting along with dogs often apply to getting along with humans.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Ah, but what about all the millions you tempt into flying off to far-flung locations? Or maybe travel writers don't influence travel habits?
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Ah, but what about all the millions you tempt into flying off to far-flung locations? Or maybe travel writers don't influence travel habits?
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
Get a fucking human friend. Really. It's not hard. People who solely rely on pets for company - looking at you, @IanB2 - are pathetic losers who are too charmless to have human friends. Their environment-destroying dogs should be shot and they should be forced to live under skips in Newent
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Ah, but what about all the millions you tempt into flying off to far-flung locations? Or maybe travel writers don't influence travel habits?
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
Get a fucking human friend. Really. It's not hard. People who solely rely on pets for company - looking at you, @IanB2 - are pathetic losers who are too charmless to have human friends. Their environment-destroying dogs should be shot and they should be forced to live under skips in Newent
A pet rabbit that eats your own lawn should be allowed, I think.
A dog that eats cows or a cat that eats birds should definitely be frowned upon.
What transcends party politics is that since at least the 1970s we have drifted into an absolute state of managed decay. I know I keep pointing to what I saw in 1996 as an example of this, but it happened then and its happening again now. That Labour managed to replace a lot of schools and hospitals is Good. Sadly a lot of what was built on their watch was just as half-baked and shoddy as the crumbling facilities they replaced.
There is a British disease of spending as little money as possible and then wondering why what we have is so poor. A basic lack of comprehension that not spending money on x is the same as not spending money at all.
We're seeing this brought to life in both education and the NHS. These schools (and some hospitals) needed to be replaced. But that has cost and the likes of Zahawi don't want to spend the money. But there is also cost in not spending that money. More cost - as not only will replacement schools need to be built anyway, but the disruption cost and the emergency costs will be added on top.
Until politicians actually talk to people about this we will remain stuck. Thatcher's simplistic comparison to a household budget appears to have stuck and that is a big part of the problem, but nobody of either party have tried to change this false narrative.
Don’t worry - the *cost* of the shoddy buildings was world class.
A relative who runs a building business, pointed out that the price per square meter for the new schools (in the early 2000s) handily exceeded the price he charged for digging and fitting out luxury basements as part of whole house rip outs for 1% in Chelsea. The most expensive kind of construction there is…
And the school designs didn’t have zero chlorine 15m swimming pools, with total water reclamation in their basements.
Mind you, one client did ask if they could do the room from Goldfinger. The answer was that getting sign off off on a floor sliding open with no railing, a large billiard table driving round the room etc. was impossible. So we are the nation who can’t.
Isn't this the point I keep making? We're spending ludicrous amounts of money to build low cost shoddy shite. An ocean of cash lining people's pockets.
I think most are in agreement with that statement I know I am of the same mind. However how does this happen? I know my thought is there is a problem in the civil servants running the various departments. While a minister approves a new school I very much doubt they are in a position to be able to gauge whether the plans presented and the bids received are value for money. I suspect therefore the problem is in the specification and bidding process.
From dealings I have had with civil servants in both the DfT and DoH on various projects they seem to have little clue how to define a project, and decide if a bid is good value. Then once the project is underway they keep wanting to make changes. Look there for the problem in my view.
I met a civil servant on the periphery of the British Army small arms ammunition fuckup.
Brief version of the story
1) they binned the old ammunition buying unit in the MOD for being… a bunch of old fashioned nerds. One young civil servant described them as difficult to work with, given their “worrying obsession with firearms” 2) the replacement team bought the cheapest stuff they could find. 3) guns started jamming in Afghanistan
The civil servant in question said that they had “followed best practice”. Really? Buying shit that works is surely at the top of page one on The Guide To Buying Stuff, right?
He then angrily demanded if I “wanted the ammunition for the British Army to be bought by a bunch of gun nuts?”
He was flummoxed, when I replied “Yes”
Lack of respect for Subject Matter Expertise and (related) one of my bugbears; the idea that seeing the Big Picture is a rarer, more elevated skill than understanding the Detail; that Big Picture people don't need to grasp the Detail and Detail people *can't* grasp the Big Picture. It's utterly false. Big Picture people who are clueless on Detail often don't really get the Big Picture. And the people best placed to get the Big Picture are often those who grasp the Detail. The skills are not separate and on a different level. They are equal and go together. I say this is 'related' to your point because I sense it comes from the same source - snobbery, entitlement, elitism in education, the class system.
I do have a lot of respect for some Big Picture people I know, who in short time are able to absorb briefing on the key issues and options on a matter from the experts, and make appropriate decisions as a result which I appreciate I would struggle to weigh up all the competing factors and pressures. But the key is they do get given the detail.
But for others as you say it can easily cross over to an actual disdain for detail. You see it in a culture where they object to being provided detailed information in the first place, and actually get pretty shirty if people try to ensure they do, possibly because that then undercuts a future defence for a wrong decision by claiming they did not have all the information. They might make decisions on the fly without even asking someone about the detail, assuming it is all fine, and then forcing the experts to try to make it work, when asking in advance would obviate the need to scrabble around like that.
Sure, those at the top do need information provided in concise format, Cabinet Ministers asking for shorter briefing summaries for example is not inherently wrong, but it cannot be a hard rule, as sometimes as you say you cannot get an accurate picture without the detail.
One thing that Dom Cummings got right - the whole system of presenting information to ministers doesn't work. Drowning people in paper, vs
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
The precise definition of a particular dog breed was the root of the problem with the DDA 1991. Defining a breed for the purposes of denying insurance, requires a very different standard to a definition that can be used to prosecute people.
And yet Australia has a highly successful, popular ban on XL Bullies - and others - framed this way:
“Australia has a ban on aggressive dog breeds that were specifically bred for fighting. Importing these breeds to Australia is not permitted by law. This ban is in place to safeguard the public and other animals. Dog breeds that are banned in Australia are:
Pit Bull Terrier breeds, including American Pit Bull Terrier Dogo Argentino Fila Brasileiro Japanese Tosa Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario The ban also extends to mix breeds of these breeds and to dogs that display any visible characteristics of the breeds mentioned above.”
Pass a law that says all dogs must be licensed and insured. Owners can then be prosecuted if dog is not insured. Market forces will then disincentivize ownership of Bad Dogs. Easy.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Ah, but what about all the millions you tempt into flying off to far-flung locations? Or maybe travel writers don't influence travel habits?
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
Get a fucking human friend. Really. It's not hard. People who solely rely on pets for company - looking at you, @IanB2 - are pathetic losers who are too charmless to have human friends. Their environment-destroying dogs should be shot and they should be forced to live under skips in Newent
I'd class this as trying too hard, so not believable. Not least because if you think only people without friends have pets you're insane, since a cursory glance at virtually everyone with a pet would disprove it. Pets add something different to human friends, they're not a replacement for them.
More to the point, don't we often ridicule 'solutions' which rely on ignoring human nature and culture? People have been keeping pets of different kinds for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, they're not going to stop now.
Malmesbury - You may like this bit from Michael Hayden's "Playing to the Edge". When Obama objected to the lengths of the intelligence briefings he was getting, one of the intelligence people suggested they present him with haikus.
Comments
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost
as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
It’s like all the virtues and vices of East Asia are intensified in this one country
The civil servant I spoke to was a modern, liberal progressive, young man. The civil servant who found the ammo buying unit appalling wasn’t a white Anglo Saxon from Oxbridge either.
They both had a different, newer version of the attitude you are talking about. They were Good People faced with people who are Not.
It is of interest to see how the old snowberries and attitudes have been smoothly adapted to the new, modern society we live in.
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Can you send me a PM and Ill send you details, your mail is blocked on the site
vf.politicalbetting.com##.Comment:has-text(/MoonRabbit/)
This works even if some arsehole replies to their stupid shit.
Existing laws about dogs out of control, etc.
They really do need to get a wiggle on, because eventually - maybe soon - these dogs are gonna kill some kids in a ghastly way - and it will be captured hideously on camera - and then ministers will lose careers
The downside is the realisation that younger colleagues probably see me as some manner of kindly uncle, passing on snippets of advice and offering them a biscuit.
It will be too hard to push the necessary but obvious new law through that is a twofer where the dog gets banned and the owner gets locked up despite not only dog attack stats going down but also loads of other crimes go down when the owners are behind bars.
Hampshire has one of the few remaining groups;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampshire_County_Architects
But we decided to gut local government because we didn't want to pay for it.
👍
Incidentally, before I typed "here", autocomplete suggested "masquerading". It is cleverer than we realise.
"Just close it, Tom, I've got the ACC on my back."
Apparently it was another XL Bully. Girl has half her face ripped off
Even had a van painted up (which looked as bad as you might expect).
Anyway, he's been left with one as there's no demand now. It eats half a cow weekly and doesn't come out much, presumably because it might decide to snack on a child or two.
He also has a Lab which of course is perfectly well behaved.
I have no idea why they haven't been banned, although no doubt someone would breed something very slightly different and give it a different name.
The problem comes when people think that a simple set of rules can change human behaviour. Doing this often changes the “skin” on the organisation without creating real change.
Every police officer involved in strip searching minority school girls has done their diversity courses. Their senior officers have all got abstract perspex awards in expensive cabinets, testifying to how all their subordinates have been trained in being diverse.
Changing human behaviour involves teaching humans a new pattern of thinking. Which is hard. Once again, hat tip to @Cyclefree
One excellent one is hearing a call on the radio. The station car park is empty. Apart from the top of the line car that one of the SMT uses as a personal car - but is still nominally a police car. And woe before any who touches it….
So if your dog kills someone, you’re looking at murder.
The gains on the NAEP, until recently, show that their efforts have had some success.
These efforts appealed to moderate swing voters, for example "soccer moms', as they are called here in the US. So improving public schools has been both good policy, and good politics for many Republicans.
What some of the commenters here seem to be saying is that the same is not true for the UK's Conservatives.
Or am I misunderstanding the arguments being made?
(The Democrats have an alliance with the teacher's unions -- which makes it far more difficult for them to advocate education reforms.)
...to fall down."
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
“Australia has a ban on aggressive dog breeds that were specifically bred for fighting. Importing these breeds to Australia is not permitted by law. This ban is in place to safeguard the public and other animals. Dog breeds that are banned in Australia are:
Pit Bull Terrier breeds, including American Pit Bull Terrier
Dogo Argentino
Fila Brasileiro
Japanese Tosa
Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario
The ban also extends to mix breeds of these breeds and to dogs that display any visible characteristics of the breeds mentioned above.”
https://petraveller.com.au/blog/prohibited-dog-and-cat-breeds-in-australia
So it can be done. Just get on with it
He refers to the Profumo affair, a Tory government in turmoil, the night of the long knives when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of his Cabinet, then fell ill and was replaced by “a toff”, Alec Douglas-Home, who “admitted that he did his maths with matchsticks”, he says.
Even with this seemingly open goal in front of them, “Labour – with Harold Wilson putting in a good performance, using television for the first time really well, talking about the white heat of technology and modernising Britain – won by four seats”.
He says the lesson of 1964 is that while the public might want change after 13 years of Conservative prime ministers, “we’ve also got to persuade them that there’s something really good that’s going to happen. I think there needs to be hope.”
Turning to the numbers, he says it will be a “massive ask” for Sir Keir to achieve the 12-point lead over the Tories that he will need to win the next general election, despite leading by 15 points in the polls at the moment.
“I think Keir Starmer has done a good job… in terms of getting rid of the thuggery and the anti-Semitism and the elements that just turned off people completely. So he’s in an extremely good position, but it will take a minor miracle to get an overall majority.” He reasons that the Tories will play dirty, recalling their attempt to toxify the Blair brand with “devil eyes” posters and New Labour, New Danger slogans, which could “erode voting at the edges”.
“You only need to erode [Labour’s lead] back to eight [points] and you’re into a minority government. I have to keep reminding people of that, because the mountain is enormous, so let’s approach it in that vein and let’s make sure there’s no complacency at all.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/03/david-blunkett-interview-labour-keir-starmer/
Under Butskellian we had tax and spend. And for about a third of a century it worked. And then it stopped
Then under neoliberalism we had spend but no tax. And for about a third of a century it worked. And then it stopped.
Now we have two options: more tax and less spend, or stimulate growth by importing millions of people.
The Govt has chosen the latter because it doesn't care about the working class.
But the next day I will think
"What's the big deal about landfill? Scotland is not short of big empty holes in the ground like old mines and old quarries"
A 12 point lead gives a majority of about 90.
8 points about 45.
Maybe he needs to keep reminding people because they keep regarding it as bollocks?
Which means councils cannot do much else than their statutory duties (or not even that in some cases), mostly on adult social care, which then means people ask further what do councils even do for all their money, it should be cut even more, which means they can do less, which means it should be cut even more, etc etc
Energy from Waste, with carbon capture, is net negative, since around half of the CO2 is biogenic. Plus you still have energy left over to export to the grid.
And I mean properly net negative, not something dodgy involving felling trees in Canada to make wood pellets.
Get rid of waste, provide leccy, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Sounds like a triple win. And better than landfill.
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the UK
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
Pretty sedate compared to, say, Rome.
(Some of which inherited from China.)
All the long-standing gaps in the city centre "grid" are being filled in and there is a lot of new development along the river.
Ever been to the North end of Blackpool recently?
Once again we see society crumbing, schools actually falling apart, NHS on its face and the economy in a hole.
New Labour may not have been perfect but it did repair those schools, it did reduce NHS waiting lists to the lowest ever and had the highest NHS satisfaction of all time.
Starmer may not achieve all of his goals - but if he can achieve any of those he will be more objectively useful for the country than any PM since Blair.
But for others as you say it can easily cross over to an actual disdain for detail. You see it in a culture where they object to being provided detailed information in the first place, and actually get pretty shirty if people try to ensure they do, possibly because that then undercuts a future defence for a wrong decision by claiming they did not have all the information. They might make decisions on the fly without even asking someone about the detail, assuming it is all fine, and then forcing the experts to try to make it work, when asking in advance would obviate the need to scrabble around like that.
Sure, those at the top do need information provided in concise format, Cabinet Ministers asking for shorter briefing summaries for example is not inherently wrong, but it cannot be a hard rule, as sometimes as you say you cannot get an accurate picture without the detail.
His figures are based on Scotland remaining the same. And UNS.
We know that neither are happening.
To get a majority Labour need c.6% lead. The Tories c.3%.
That's leaving aside that Labour needs a much smaller seat total than 325, or the Tories, to form the next government.
Which is my definition of "winning".
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
I am - literally - just relaying what he said. He's not an anti-Nat or a Scotchophobe, he's a centrist Remainery businessman who went there for his work, and was astonished, in a bad way. Maybe he got unlucky?
I had cause to walk the length of Kingsland Rd E2 a few weeks ago, and while it was interesting, vibrant etc, it was also manky as fck. Cities tend to be like that.
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
An animal isn’t a moral agent. The owner/keeper is the moral agent on its behalf.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
After all, they fell well short of the margin UNS said they required.
Also, Glasgow is a great city, I know it quite well. Beautiful Victorian buildings, 2nd city of the empire and all that, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Alisdair Gray's Lanark, it's full of character and noble architecture and the people are genuinely funny. Couldn't live there coz of the wintry dark but nonetheless I admire it, it's like a Scottish Newcastle but possibly grander. I don't like to think of it in decay
What's the prize, btw?
And not all the teachers need to have formal training. For example: "Growing up with a dog can teach kids a lot—responsibility, empathy, logistics, and fun. Kids who grow up with dogs often report loving their dogs more than they love their siblings! Dogs are sources of unconditional love, support, and a respite from the difficulties even young children face.
But dogs can do more than being a happy playmate and trusted confidant. New research shows they can play a role in improved childhood development."
source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-online-secrets/202008/dogs-may-be-good-your-childs-development
I think that it is easier to learn how to get along with most dogs than most humans -- and that the lessons learned from getting along with dogs often apply to getting along with humans.
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
A dog that eats cows or a cat that eats birds should definitely be frowned upon.
Pass a law that says all dogs must be licensed and insured. Owners can then be prosecuted if dog is not insured. Market forces will then disincentivize ownership of Bad Dogs. Easy.
More to the point, don't we often ridicule 'solutions' which rely on ignoring human nature and culture? People have been keeping pets of different kinds for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, they're not going to stop now.
I bet the people who built Gobekli Tepe had pets.