Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Starmer is more popular than Corbyn in London – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,916
edited September 2023 in General
Starmer is more popular than Corbyn in London – politicalbetting.com

Favourability ratings among LondonersKeir Starmer: 40% favourable / 44% unfavourableSadiq Khan: 40% / 52%Jeremy Corbyn: 33% / 55%Rishi Sunak: 26% / 64%Susan Hall*: 22% / 21%Jeremy Hunt: 18% / 61%*New Tory mayoral candidate, 57% say "don't know"https://t.co/YEYoGBrGyS pic.twitter.com/BcF0lLee6C

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    First like Starmer.
  • Options
    Jeremy Corbyn fans please explain?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    I thought London hated Tories?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    F1arce again in Italy.
  • Options

    I thought London hated Tories?

    They do but FTTP can lead to odd results.


  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,905
    Sandpit said:

    F1arce again in Italy.

    The farce with F1 is that we all know who's going to win already.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Jeremy Corbyn fans please explain?

    He's an entertainer
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,457
    FPT... the Dead Pool prize is a trophy made from a partially melted BMW N57 piston.

    I think three or four people on it have died but not from The Vid. This was always the risk for those unscrupulous goal hangers who picked ancient people.
  • Options
    FPT: "people who bang on about the environment so often have a pet or multiple pets"

    Many of them also have a child or multiple children.

    I know which has the greater carbon footprint.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    On topic, please can Corbyn stand for mayor of London.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,319
    edited September 2023
    I just asked the train ticket seller for a return ticket to Arrogate via That London. He refused, saying that due to government upfuckery the machine would only dispense a single. The single is 60% the price of a double.

    The Government is full of Bad People who do Bad Things, and I hope their genitals rot. From Plague. On Acid. In Space. Grrr.

  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, please can Corbyn stand for mayor of London.

    For balance, perhaps Bozo could run as an independent too?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    I thought London hated Tories?

    I thought London hated Tories?

    They do but FTTP can lead to odd results.


    So how come Sir Kid Starver, extreme reactionary neon-fascist Tory, is so liked in London?
  • Options

    I thought London hated Tories?

    I thought London hated Tories?

    They do but FTTP can lead to odd results.


    So how come Sir Kid Starver, extreme reactionary neon-fascist Tory, is so liked in London?
    Because he's a top lawyer.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,319

    Jeremy Corbyn fans please explain?

    He's an entertainer
    (If you mentally said that in a David Brent voice, I will think well of you. Briefly. But well.)
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,635
    Surely you need a straight poll of first preferences for a particular contest - e.g. Khan versus Corbyn versus Hall - rather than trying to draw conclusions from a list of favourability ratings of a lot of potential candidates?
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    viewcode said:

    Jeremy Corbyn fans please explain?

    He's an entertainer
    (If you mentally said that in a David Brent voice, I will think well of you. Briefly. But well.)
    I prefer Jezza to Sir Bland

    Jezza has at least some policies
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,905
    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT... the Dead Pool prize is a trophy made from a partially melted BMW N57 piston.

    I think three or four people on it have died but not from The Vid. This was always the risk for those unscrupulous goal hangers who picked ancient people.

    Covid's been rather a let down, all things considered.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736

    FPT: "people who bang on about the environment so often have a pet or multiple pets"

    Many of them also have a child or multiple children.

    I know which has the greater carbon footprint.

    People with dogs travel a lot less abroad (@IanB2 being an exception) so I expect that the net CO2 from less flying cancels out any from the dog.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,309
    Afternoon all :)

    There was a VI poll in the recent YouGov London Research polling which suggested the Labour candidate still enjoyed a big lead over the Conservative.

    ULEZ has been introduced but it was still school holidays last week so we get more of an indication this coming weel as to how many people will be caught and how much "noise" there is going to be in terms of protests and criminal damage.The decision of authorities like Surrey not to warn drivers heading into London they are liable to the ULEZ and any penalty charges seems remarkably petty and short-sighted yet presumably is part of the political game at work.

    The losers will shout long and loud as will those who would oppose Khan even if he told them the Sun rose in the east, set in the west and bears defecate in wooded environments. It's the same old story - "I don't like X, I've never liked X, I don't know why I don't like X, I just don't".

    I think, as with Johnson and Livingstone before him, you can criticise Khan for what he hasn't done as much as for what he has but that's to misunderstand the point of the London Mayoralty - it's not to help the people of London as much as to be a political symbol for London (with a fair dollop of self-aggrandisement for good measure).
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    Looking at those figures, the current baseline Tory vote in London is around 20%.

    Even if concentrated in outer London that doesn't look a lot of seats retained.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    FPT: "people who bang on about the environment so often have a pet or multiple pets"

    Many of them also have a child or multiple children.

    I know which has the greater carbon footprint.

    People with dogs travel a lot less abroad (@IanB2 being an exception) so I expect that the net CO2 from less flying cancels out any from the dog.
    So kennels and dog sitters indirectly have a massive carbon footprint?
  • Options
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    There was a VI poll in the recent YouGov London Research polling which suggested the Labour candidate still enjoyed a big lead over the Conservative.

    ULEZ has been introduced but it was still school holidays last week so we get more of an indication this coming weel as to how many people will be caught and how much "noise" there is going to be in terms of protests and criminal damage.The decision of authorities like Surrey not to warn drivers heading into London they are liable to the ULEZ and any penalty charges seems remarkably petty and short-sighted yet presumably is part of the political game at work.

    The losers will shout long and loud as will those who would oppose Khan even if he told them the Sun rose in the east, set in the west and bears defecate in wooded environments. It's the same old story - "I don't like X, I've never liked X, I don't know why I don't like X, I just don't".

    I think, as with Johnson and Livingstone before him, you can criticise Khan for what he hasn't done as much as for what he has but that's to misunderstand the point of the London Mayoralty - it's not to help the people of London as much as to be a political symbol for London (with a fair dollop of self-aggrandisement for good measure).

    Two problems for London Conservatives.

    One is that the Londoners who dislike ULEZ mostly voted Conservative anyway. There isn't an election shifting wedge there.

    The other is that Sue Hall really is a terrible candidate, who simply isn't up to a job of this profile.


  • Options
    Italy ex-PM alleges France downed passenger jet in bid to kill Gaddafi

    https://www.politico.eu/article/giuliano-amato-muammar-gaddafiv-itavia-flight-870/

    An explosive and unsubstantiated allegation that Paris gave the order to shoot down an Italian passenger jet in a bid to kill Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 1980 risks sparking a diplomatic row between Italy and France.

    In an interview with Rome daily Repubblica published on Saturday, former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato claimed that the French air force inadvertently fired a missile that downed Itavia Flight 870 en route from Bologna to Palermo. The crash over the Mediterranean killed all 81 people on board and led to rampant speculation in Italy about the cause.

    “A plan had been launched to hit the plane on which Gaddafi was flying,” Amato claimed in the interview, suggesting the strongman ruler was tipped off by Amato’s own former rival, ex-Prime Minister Bettino Craxi. Amato called on French President Emmanuel Macron to respond to the claim, saying “it would be an opportunity for the Élysée to wash away the shame that weighs on Paris.”
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,457

    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT... the Dead Pool prize is a trophy made from a partially melted BMW N57 piston.

    I think three or four people on it have died but not from The Vid. This was always the risk for those unscrupulous goal hangers who picked ancient people.

    Covid's been rather a let down, all things considered.
    Colin Powell or Tim Brooke-Taylor would have been good picks.
  • Options
    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT... the Dead Pool prize is a trophy made from a partially melted BMW N57 piston.

    I think three or four people on it have died but not from The Vid. This was always the risk for those unscrupulous goal hangers who picked ancient people.

    It’s a shame it’s been unclaimed, the ‘but did they die with or of COVID’ controversy would have been epic.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,309

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    There was a VI poll in the recent YouGov London Research polling which suggested the Labour candidate still enjoyed a big lead over the Conservative.

    ULEZ has been introduced but it was still school holidays last week so we get more of an indication this coming weel as to how many people will be caught and how much "noise" there is going to be in terms of protests and criminal damage.The decision of authorities like Surrey not to warn drivers heading into London they are liable to the ULEZ and any penalty charges seems remarkably petty and short-sighted yet presumably is part of the political game at work.

    The losers will shout long and loud as will those who would oppose Khan even if he told them the Sun rose in the east, set in the west and bears defecate in wooded environments. It's the same old story - "I don't like X, I've never liked X, I don't know why I don't like X, I just don't".

    I think, as with Johnson and Livingstone before him, you can criticise Khan for what he hasn't done as much as for what he has but that's to misunderstand the point of the London Mayoralty - it's not to help the people of London as much as to be a political symbol for London (with a fair dollop of self-aggrandisement for good measure).

    Two problems for London Conservatives.

    One is that the Londoners who dislike ULEZ mostly voted Conservative anyway. There isn't an election shifting wedge there.

    The other is that Sue Hall really is a terrible candidate, who simply isn't up to a job of this profile.


    I do wonder if Khan has made a personal mistake. Arguably, he and to an extent Andy Burnham have been the highest profile Labour figures in office for some time.Starmer now has a very real chance of capturing the big prize. Khan could have eschewed a third term as London Mayor in favour of a return to Westminster in the autumn of 2024 - he could have been found a safe London seat - leaving Labour to put up a new candidate for Mayor.

    Khan would have been a senior figure in an election winning Labour Parliamentary Party and it's hard not to see him achieving a Cabinet post during the first term of a Starmer Government.

    Perhaps he decided to play it safe and remain a big fish in a small pond but the problem is he is attracting personal animosity and as the new Government hits its mid term trough, he's going to find the fourth term a big challenge so does he stand again and lose or walk away hoping for something nice from Starmer?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412

    Italy ex-PM alleges France downed passenger jet in bid to kill Gaddafi

    https://www.politico.eu/article/giuliano-amato-muammar-gaddafiv-itavia-flight-870/

    An explosive and unsubstantiated allegation that Paris gave the order to shoot down an Italian passenger jet in a bid to kill Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 1980 risks sparking a diplomatic row between Italy and France.

    In an interview with Rome daily Repubblica published on Saturday, former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato claimed that the French air force inadvertently fired a missile that downed Itavia Flight 870 en route from Bologna to Palermo. The crash over the Mediterranean killed all 81 people on board and led to rampant speculation in Italy about the cause.

    “A plan had been launched to hit the plane on which Gaddafi was flying,” Amato claimed in the interview, suggesting the strongman ruler was tipped off by Amato’s own former rival, ex-Prime Minister Bettino Craxi. Amato called on French President Emmanuel Macron to respond to the claim, saying “it would be an opportunity for the Élysée to wash away the shame that weighs on Paris.”

    That shit again.

    A forensic reconstruction of the wreckage showed an internal explosion and no fragments from a warhead. The analysis done at Farnborough suggested that a bomb had been placed in the aft toilet.

    The Italian response at the time was that the report was “politically unusable”
  • Options
    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,319
    Foxy said:

    Looking at those figures, the current baseline Tory vote in London is around 20%.

    Even if concentrated in outer London that doesn't look a lot of seats retained.

    Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

    :):):):)
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,309

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    Unfortunately we bump up against a couple of unpalatable truths in all that.

    The Government wants as many people in work as possible (laudable and good for the tax revenues). It is easier to hire new cheap labour than it is to invest in improving business practices via technology or automaton (especially true since the coming of Freedom of Movement).

    High levels of employment do not represent high levels of productivity - indeed, the opposite may be true. Pay one unemployed man to dig a hole and then pay another to fill it in again is one response but in the 2010s and 2020s it was cheap labour from across the world coming to the EU and the UK.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,635
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    There was a VI poll in the recent YouGov London Research polling which suggested the Labour candidate still enjoyed a big lead over the Conservative.

    ULEZ has been introduced but it was still school holidays last week so we get more of an indication this coming weel as to how many people will be caught and how much "noise" there is going to be in terms of protests and criminal damage.The decision of authorities like Surrey not to warn drivers heading into London they are liable to the ULEZ and any penalty charges seems remarkably petty and short-sighted yet presumably is part of the political game at work.

    The losers will shout long and loud as will those who would oppose Khan even if he told them the Sun rose in the east, set in the west and bears defecate in wooded environments. It's the same old story - "I don't like X, I've never liked X, I don't know why I don't like X, I just don't".

    I think, as with Johnson and Livingstone before him, you can criticise Khan for what he hasn't done as much as for what he has but that's to misunderstand the point of the London Mayoralty - it's not to help the people of London as much as to be a political symbol for London (with a fair dollop of self-aggrandisement for good measure).

    Two problems for London Conservatives.

    One is that the Londoners who dislike ULEZ mostly voted Conservative anyway. There isn't an election shifting wedge there.

    The other is that Sue Hall really is a terrible candidate, who simply isn't up to a job of this profile.


    I do wonder if Khan has made a personal mistake. Arguably, he and to an extent Andy Burnham have been the highest profile Labour figures in office for some time.Starmer now has a very real chance of capturing the big prize. Khan could have eschewed a third term as London Mayor in favour of a return to Westminster in the autumn of 2024 - he could have been found a safe London seat - leaving Labour to put up a new candidate for Mayor.

    Khan would have been a senior figure in an election winning Labour Parliamentary Party and it's hard not to see him achieving a Cabinet post during the first term of a Starmer Government.

    Perhaps he decided to play it safe and remain a big fish in a small pond but the problem is he is attracting personal animosity and as the new Government hits its mid term trough, he's going to find the fourth term a big challenge so does he stand again and lose or walk away hoping for something nice from Starmer?
    Maybe he just saw that photo of Susan Hall and thought he was a cert for re-election.
  • Options

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
  • Options
    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,309
    Chris said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    There was a VI poll in the recent YouGov London Research polling which suggested the Labour candidate still enjoyed a big lead over the Conservative.

    ULEZ has been introduced but it was still school holidays last week so we get more of an indication this coming weel as to how many people will be caught and how much "noise" there is going to be in terms of protests and criminal damage.The decision of authorities like Surrey not to warn drivers heading into London they are liable to the ULEZ and any penalty charges seems remarkably petty and short-sighted yet presumably is part of the political game at work.

    The losers will shout long and loud as will those who would oppose Khan even if he told them the Sun rose in the east, set in the west and bears defecate in wooded environments. It's the same old story - "I don't like X, I've never liked X, I don't know why I don't like X, I just don't".

    I think, as with Johnson and Livingstone before him, you can criticise Khan for what he hasn't done as much as for what he has but that's to misunderstand the point of the London Mayoralty - it's not to help the people of London as much as to be a political symbol for London (with a fair dollop of self-aggrandisement for good measure).

    Two problems for London Conservatives.

    One is that the Londoners who dislike ULEZ mostly voted Conservative anyway. There isn't an election shifting wedge there.

    The other is that Sue Hall really is a terrible candidate, who simply isn't up to a job of this profile.


    I do wonder if Khan has made a personal mistake. Arguably, he and to an extent Andy Burnham have been the highest profile Labour figures in office for some time.Starmer now has a very real chance of capturing the big prize. Khan could have eschewed a third term as London Mayor in favour of a return to Westminster in the autumn of 2024 - he could have been found a safe London seat - leaving Labour to put up a new candidate for Mayor.

    Khan would have been a senior figure in an election winning Labour Parliamentary Party and it's hard not to see him achieving a Cabinet post during the first term of a Starmer Government.

    Perhaps he decided to play it safe and remain a big fish in a small pond but the problem is he is attracting personal animosity and as the new Government hits its mid term trough, he's going to find the fourth term a big challenge so does he stand again and lose or walk away hoping for something nice from Starmer?
    Maybe he just saw that photo of Susan Hall and thought he was a cert for re-election.
    Inasmuch as the Conservatives have given him the best opponent possible, perhaps.

    Paul Scully would have been a more politically adept rival though his history is more with the LDs than Labour.
  • Options

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,576
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    There was a VI poll in the recent YouGov London Research polling which suggested the Labour candidate still enjoyed a big lead over the Conservative.

    ULEZ has been introduced but it was still school holidays last week so we get more of an indication this coming weel as to how many people will be caught and how much "noise" there is going to be in terms of protests and criminal damage.The decision of authorities like Surrey not to warn drivers heading into London they are liable to the ULEZ and any penalty charges seems remarkably petty and short-sighted yet presumably is part of the political game at work.

    The losers will shout long and loud as will those who would oppose Khan even if he told them the Sun rose in the east, set in the west and bears defecate in wooded environments. It's the same old story - "I don't like X, I've never liked X, I don't know why I don't like X, I just don't".

    I think, as with Johnson and Livingstone before him, you can criticise Khan for what he hasn't done as much as for what he has but that's to misunderstand the point of the London Mayoralty - it's not to help the people of London as much as to be a political symbol for London (with a fair dollop of self-aggrandisement for good measure).

    Two problems for London Conservatives.

    One is that the Londoners who dislike ULEZ mostly voted Conservative anyway. There isn't an election shifting wedge there.

    The other is that Sue Hall really is a terrible candidate, who simply isn't up to a job of this profile.


    I do wonder if Khan has made a personal mistake. Arguably, he and to an extent Andy Burnham have been the highest profile Labour figures in office for some time.Starmer now has a very real chance of capturing the big prize. Khan could have eschewed a third term as London Mayor in favour of a return to Westminster in the autumn of 2024 - he could have been found a safe London seat - leaving Labour to put up a new candidate for Mayor.

    Khan would have been a senior figure in an election winning Labour Parliamentary Party and it's hard not to see him achieving a Cabinet post during the first term of a Starmer Government.

    Perhaps he decided to play it safe and remain a big fish in a small pond but the problem is he is attracting personal animosity and as the new Government hits its mid term trough, he's going to find the fourth term a big challenge so does he stand again and lose or walk away hoping for something nice from Starmer?
    I suppose the prize for Sadiq is to get to be mayor with a sympathetic government so can actually leave more of a legacy. The difficulty with a Westminster return is that he's rather been overtaken by those who stayed put. If Labour win Foreign Secretary is possibly the only potentially open top job, as Cooper and Reeves are surely shoo-ins, while the next generation of Labour moderates (Streeting, Philippson, Haigh) are likely ahead of him in the pecking order now if Starmer wants to freshen things up at the top. Would he want to go back to justice, over being Mayor - a job with plenty of perks? He's not someone with a big personal following which can be parlayed into demanding a big job. Burnham I think realises this too, which is why he has assiduously courted the Labour left to give himself a base, as he clearly wants to return at some point.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots



  • Options
    viewcode said:

    I just asked the train ticket seller for a return ticket to Arrogate via That London. He refused, saying that due to government upfuckery the machine would only dispense a single. The single is 60% the price of a double.

    The Government is full of Bad People who do Bad Things, and I hope their genitals rot. From Plague. On Acid. In Space. Grrr.

    They are encouraging you to stay in Harrogate. That’s levelling up in action…
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736

    Foxy said:

    FPT: "people who bang on about the environment so often have a pet or multiple pets"

    Many of them also have a child or multiple children.

    I know which has the greater carbon footprint.

    People with dogs travel a lot less abroad (@IanB2 being an exception) so I expect that the net CO2 from less flying cancels out any from the dog.
    So kennels and dog sitters indirectly have a massive carbon footprint?
    Yes, I think so. Certainly a lot of the dog owners that I meet holiday in the UK so they can take their Fido with them.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,319
    edited September 2023
    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots
    France is one of the few countries that doesn't have the problem in the same way

    In WW1, France fought like lions but the loss of life was large.
    Not enough men were left to father children
    As a result the Armee was quite small in the 30s to fight WW2
    So they fought badly and lost
    Having learned the demographic lesson post WW2 they gave families help to have babies and babies they had
    So that, combined with immigration, mean they have enough young people to look after the old


  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 20,319

    viewcode said:

    I just asked the train ticket seller for a return ticket to Arrogate via That London. He refused, saying that due to government upfuckery the machine would only dispense a single. The single is 60% the price of a double.

    The Government is full of Bad People who do Bad Things, and I hope their genitals rot. From Plague. On Acid. In Space. Grrr.

    They are encouraging you to stay in Harrogate. That’s levelling up in action…
    I think Harrogate may differ... 😀
  • Options
    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots
    On the other hand, if the productivity benefits of AI are mainly among the so-called 'email jobs', it could just add to the toxic mix by creating a new class of people with no marketable skills despite having ticked all the right boxes for the 'knowledge economy'.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots



    France is one of the few countries that doesn't have the problem in the same way

    In WW1, France fought like lions but the loss of life was large.
    Not enough men were left to father children
    As a result the Armee was quite small in the 30s to fight WW2
    So they fought badly and lost
    Having learned the demographic lesson post WW2 they gave families help to have babies and babies they had
    So that, combined with immigration, mean they have enough young people to look after the old


    Except France still isn’t at replacement level for fertility rate AND it probably has the worst race relations in Europe, after Sweden

    France is not a solution. They did well with nukes tho
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots
    France is one of the few countries that doesn't have the problem in the same way

    In WW1, France fought like lions but the loss of life was large.
    Not enough men were left to father children
    As a result the Armee was quite small in the 30s to fight WW2
    So they fought badly and lost
    Having learned the demographic lesson post WW2 they gave families help to have babies and babies they had
    So that, combined with immigration, mean they have enough young people to look after the old


    No, they don’t. Hence the pension age rises and the riots.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots
    On the other hand, if the productivity benefits of AI are mainly among the so-called 'email jobs', it could just add to the toxic mix by creating a new class of people with no marketable skills despite having ticked all the right boxes for the 'knowledge economy'.
    Maaaaaate

    I was trying to be cheerful
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots



    No, it's the opposite. What drives migration is the unemployment and underemployment of the young in developing countries, particularly those which have had premature deindustrialisation and run out of farm able land.

    First these people migrate to the sprawling slums of their own country, then to neighbouring countries that offer better opportunities, then to the developed countries. It is a worldwide phenomenon. AI and automation is likely to make it worse by deindustrialising more people.

    There was an excellent, if rather long, article here on it:

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/11/the-long-slow-death-of-global-development/
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
  • Options
    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots
    France is one of the few countries that doesn't have the problem in the same way

    In WW1, France fought like lions but the loss of life was large.
    Not enough men were left to father children
    As a result the Armee was quite small in the 30s to fight WW2
    So they fought badly and lost
    Having learned the demographic lesson post WW2 they gave families help to have babies and babies they had
    So that, combined with immigration, mean they have enough young people to look after the old


    France had the largest army in Europe at the start of the Second World War.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots



    No, it's the opposite. What drives migration is the unemployment and underemployment of the young in developing countries, particularly those which have had premature deindustrialisation and run out of farm able land.

    First these people migrate to the sprawling slums of their own country, then to neighbouring countries that offer better opportunities, then to the developed countries. It is a worldwide phenomenon. AI and automation is likely to make it worse by deindustrialising more people.

    There was an excellent, if rather long, article here on it:

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/11/the-long-slow-death-of-global-development/
    So mass migration into, say, the UK is nothing to do with us shipping in millions of nurses and other workers, and nothing to do with us importing 500,000 students every year?

    It’s a view. It’s also nonsense
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,405
    edited September 2023
    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots
    France is one of the few countries that doesn't have the problem in the same way

    In WW1, France fought like lions but the loss of life was large.
    Not enough men were left to father children
    As a result the Armee was quite small in the 30s to fight WW2
    So they fought badly and lost
    Having learned the demographic lesson post WW2 they gave families help to have babies and babies they had
    So that, combined with immigration, mean they have enough young people to look after the old


    And the old are mostly in fine fettle. They were out in the sunny hilltop village of Frottage-sur-Zizi (Oingt) earlier, performing and spectating at its annual mechanical organ festival before heading off for a vin blanc and a merguez or two at the buvette. It was so French it was like wading waist deep through the entire back catalogue of Allo Allo, but with a dab of Captain Alberto Bertorelli in the mix with the bucolic Tuscany-style views.


  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots



    No, it's the opposite. What drives migration is the unemployment and underemployment of the young in developing countries, particularly those which have had premature deindustrialisation and run out of farm able land.

    First these people migrate to the sprawling slums of their own country, then to neighbouring countries that offer better opportunities, then to the developed countries. It is a worldwide phenomenon. AI and automation is likely to make it worse by deindustrialising more people.

    There was an excellent, if rather long, article here on it:

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/11/the-long-slow-death-of-global-development/
    So mass migration into, say, the UK is nothing to do with us shipping in millions of nurses and other workers, and nothing to do with us importing 500,000 students every year?

    It’s a view. It’s also nonsense
    No, that is the legal migration, but there is a major push factor too from lack of opportunity in their own countries due to failures of economic and social development.

    We get nurses from The Phillipines not from Singapore or South Korea.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,736
    Illegal migration is driven by many factors, but lack of opportunity drives much of it.

    Read the article, you might learn something.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    RIP Zimbabwe and Hampshire cricketer Heath Streak, aged only 49 :cry:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/09/03/heath-streak-dead-zimbabwe-colon-cancer-age-49/
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    edited September 2023

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714

    Sandpit said:

    F1arce again in Italy.

    The farce with F1 is that we all know who's going to win already.
    You weren’t wrong.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959
    Not sure what the alternative is to importing nurses?
    Who else will do the job?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    dixiedean said:

    Not sure what the alternative is to importing nurses?
    Who else will do the job?

    The number of educational places for doctors and nurses has been deliberately set, by multiple governments, below the forecast requirements of the NHS.

    Unless you believe that the education system is so perfect that no potential doctor or nurse doesn’t miss out.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,796
    dixiedean said:

    Not sure what the alternative is to importing nurses?
    Who else will do the job?

    Well, three quarters of nurses are British, and there is no shortage of applicants for training courses, so if there were enough training places, there would be enough nurses.

    Of course, it's possible that having X% of foreign nurses is good for the system anyway. Certainly reduces the cost of Hindi translators for the old folks in the last hospital ward I visited. A hindi-speaking nurse was almost always on the ward or an adjacent one.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,959

    dixiedean said:

    Not sure what the alternative is to importing nurses?
    Who else will do the job?

    The number of educational places for doctors and nurses has been deliberately set, by multiple governments, below the forecast requirements of the NHS.

    Unless you believe that the education system is so perfect that no potential doctor or nurse doesn’t miss out.
    Indeed.
    But who will do it as of now and the next few years?
  • Options

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
    How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?

    Where does it end?
  • Options

    dixiedean said:

    Not sure what the alternative is to importing nurses?
    Who else will do the job?

    The number of educational places for doctors and nurses has been deliberately set, by multiple governments, below the forecast requirements of the NHS.

    Unless you believe that the education system is so perfect that no potential doctor or nurse doesn’t miss out.
    For doctors it's different, partly because training a doctor is expensive upfront (there's a pattern here), but there are plenty of places on nursing courses, starting in the next few weeks....

    https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/clearing/courses/search/undergraduate/nursing

    If it's anything like teaching, improving retention might be a more fruitful path.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    We probably need to:

    - Work longer and more flexibly
    - Automate more healthcare incl. with AI
    - State pensions to be later and lower, with increases capped at RPI
    - Start saving into healthcare plans young, just as we now do for private pensions

    If we do all that there's no reason we still can't have a very good, affordable and sustainable, quality of life.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    Sandpit said:

    RIP Zimbabwe and Hampshire cricketer Heath Streak, aged only 49 :cry:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/09/03/heath-streak-dead-zimbabwe-colon-cancer-age-49/

    His death was reported earlier this week only for him to text Henry Olonga to say he was alive.

    He was one of Zimbabwe’s true world class players but his career will always be tarnished by his 8 year ban
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
    How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?

    Where does it end?
    I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    FPT: "people who bang on about the environment so often have a pet or multiple pets"

    Many of them also have a child or multiple children.

    I know which has the greater carbon footprint.

    People with dogs travel a lot less abroad (@IanB2 being an exception) so I expect that the net CO2 from less flying cancels out any from the dog.
    So kennels and dog sitters indirectly have a massive carbon footprint?
    Yes, I think so. Certainly a lot of the dog owners that I meet holiday in the UK so they can take their Fido with them.
    I do wonder how many dogs there are these days actually called Fido ?

    Probably a handful at most.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,657
    If you compare the demographics of the US and France since WW II, you will find considerable similarities -- until Obama came along.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

    (Unlike France, the US did, briefly, have a TFR above 2.1 for a couple of years, while George W. Bush was president.)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Not sure what the alternative is to importing nurses?
    Who else will do the job?

    The number of educational places for doctors and nurses has been deliberately set, by multiple governments, below the forecast requirements of the NHS.

    Unless you believe that the education system is so perfect that no potential doctor or nurse doesn’t miss out.
    Indeed.
    But who will do it as of now and the next few years?
    The large numbers of medical staff that we strip from developing countries to work in the NHS. Just like we always do.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,556

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    We probably need to:

    - Work longer and more flexibly
    - Automate more healthcare incl. with AI
    - State pensions to be later and lower, with increases capped at RPI
    - Start saving into healthcare plans young, just as we now do for private pensions

    If we do all that there's no reason we still can't have a very good, affordable and sustainable, quality of life.
    The triple lock needs to go and I suspect, whoever wins the next election, will get rid of it.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,204
    Taz said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Even worse, we'd be spending all that money. Whilst having terrible front line healthcare and terrible pensions compared to so many of our European neighbours
    How much for "good" pensions and healthcare then? 500bn? 700bn? 1tn?

    Where does it end?
    I suspect whatever we throw at rNHS it will never be enough and people will say it’s starved of funds.
    This is what annoys me people call for all parts of the state to be fully funded....yes I agree with that what the state does should be fully funded. I asked bondegezu earlieer how much do you think the cost of fully funding everything the state does will be....answer came there none. I assume therefore he realises the tax take necessary to fully fund what the state does would be unacceptable to most voters...so the question still is cut the state functions or increase tax to fully fund them
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412

    dixiedean said:

    Not sure what the alternative is to importing nurses?
    Who else will do the job?

    The number of educational places for doctors and nurses has been deliberately set, by multiple governments, below the forecast requirements of the NHS.

    Unless you believe that the education system is so perfect that no potential doctor or nurse doesn’t miss out.
    For doctors it's different, partly because training a doctor is expensive upfront (there's a pattern here), but there are plenty of places on nursing courses, starting in the next few weeks....

    https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/clearing/courses/search/undergraduate/nursing

    If it's anything like teaching, improving retention might be a more fruitful path.
    Retention is always a part of any sane staff plan.

    I would start with student loans forgiveness, tied to years in post.

    Also employment practises from the late 20th cent. Upgrading to the 21st in one go might cause future shock.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots



    No, it's the opposite. What drives migration is the unemployment and underemployment of the young in developing countries, particularly those which have had premature deindustrialisation and run out of farm able land.

    First these people migrate to the sprawling slums of their own country, then to neighbouring countries that offer better opportunities, then to the developed countries. It is a worldwide phenomenon. AI and automation is likely to make it worse by deindustrialising more people.

    There was an excellent, if rather long, article here on it:

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/11/the-long-slow-death-of-global-development/
    So mass migration into, say, the UK is nothing to do with us shipping in millions of nurses and other workers, and nothing to do with us importing 500,000 students every year?

    It’s a view. It’s also nonsense
    No, that is the legal migration, but there is a major push factor too from lack of opportunity in their own countries due to failures of economic and social development.

    We get nurses from The Phillipines not from Singapore or South Korea.
    I never mentioned "illegal" migration, nor legal. I simply said "mass immigration". That's you deliberately misreading because you made a dumb remark

  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,523
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
    Have we got net migration figures vs productivity for those countries - US, France, Germany, UK? Would like to see if there is any correlation
  • Options
    https://twitter.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1698285590251208990

    We are now close to the one year anniversary of the “don’t underestimate Liz Truss” takes hitting their all time high.

    One of the greatest Tweets of all time.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
    Fewer than 2mn workers in the UK are paid minimum wage so something about this doesn't add up!
  • Options
    That Havertz miss...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,412

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
    Fewer than 2mn workers in the UK are paid minimum wage so something about this doesn't add up!
    The flaw in that stat is, IIRC, that there is a whole raft of jobs paid a little bit more than actual minimum wage. A few pence an hour, just so that you aren’t actually on the line.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
    Fewer than 2mn workers in the UK are paid minimum wage so something about this doesn't add up!
    It never fails to amuse me that Sandpit complains similtaneously about UK’s demographic burden and “minimum wage” immigration…

    …while posting from the UAE.
  • Options
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
    Have we got net migration figures vs productivity for those countries - US, France, Germany, UK? Would like to see if there is any correlation
    There isn’t any, as is tirelessly pointed out by @rcs1000 everything this topic emerges.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
    Fewer than 2mn workers in the UK are paid minimum wage so something about this doesn't add up!
    It never fails to amuse me that Sandpit complains similtaneously about UK’s demographic burden and “minimum wage” immigration…

    …while posting from the UAE.
    One thing we could learn from the UAE is that you don't need to offer any pathway to citizenship for migrant workers.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Beautifully simple goal
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,438

    Jeremy Corbyn fans please explain?

    I think he'd be unwise to stand - he's not a natural administrator, and the Mayor position only offers limited scope for left-wing policies. But remember it's FPTP. The starting position on those figures is Khan 40 Corbyn 33, Hall 22 - I know it's not a VI poll (there will be a big overlap in the Khan and Corbyn "likes"), but that's probably a fair reflection of attitudes. His standing doesn't on those figures remotely lead to Hall winning, and he only needs a 4% swing to put him first.

    His chance are however much better IMO in Islington North. Lots of people who are normally Labour voters and some who aren't (notably Greens, who are strong in the constituency) would be relaxed about having a sole independent leftie voice in Parliament, fulfilling much the same function as Caroline Lucas. I doubt if Starmer would really care too much.
  • Options

    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    David Smith is good in the Times today.
    Wages, in real terms, are still lower than in 2008.
    Productivity remains well behind global peers.

    “Most of the debate about how to lift productivity, by boosting investment, the quality of the infrastructure, innovation and skills has taken place outside government, and outside parliament”.

    The spending growth forecasts for the NHS are shocking, even in the medium scenario, af over £250bn per annum by 2035 at a time when the tax burden is already at its highest level for 70 years.

    That simply isn’t sustainable. Starmer may have to go to China.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-8-things-politicians-should-be-taking-about-but-arent-ccj2jnjvq
    A lot of these problems are international. All advanced western nations suffer from some or all of them. The UK's is a toxic mix, but a different cocktail of toxicity can be found elsewhere

    The combo of an ageing society with the insane and temporary solution of mass immigration is peculiarly stupid, and you can find this in France, Germany, USA, Spain, Holland, Sweden, and more, along with all the ills that spring from it

    It is tempting to look at the list of problems and yield to blank despair. There's no fixing it. However there is one potential and significant reason for hope: AI. If it fulfils its promise it will make humans vastly more productive, and Britain's productiviy issues - as an example - will disppear overnight

    Let us pray to the God of the bots
    France is one of the few countries that doesn't have the problem in the same way

    In WW1, France fought like lions but the loss of life was large.
    Not enough men were left to father children
    As a result the Armee was quite small in the 30s to fight WW2
    So they fought badly and lost
    Having learned the demographic lesson post WW2 they gave families help to have babies and babies they had
    So that, combined with immigration, mean they have enough young people to look after the old


    France had the largest army in Europe at the start of the Second World War.
    Quantity v. quality?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,015
    Leon said:

    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning

    They're winning around Robotnye. Rybar acknowledged that the UAF had complete control of the village
  • Options
    Oh Harry
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,617
    England looking to have to struggle against New Zealand. 82-4 off 12 over’s chasing 205.
    Kiwis batted very well.
  • Options
    Looking at today's football results from Scotland, they'll be dancing in the streets of Vatican City.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,617

    England looking to have to struggle against New Zealand. 82-4 off 12 over’s chasing 205.
    Kiwis batted very well.

    And Buttler’s gone now!
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681
    Leon said:

    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning

    You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
  • Options

    Jeremy Corbyn fans please explain?

    I think he'd be unwise to stand - he's not a natural administrator, and the Mayor position only offers limited scope for left-wing policies. But remember it's FPTP. The starting position on those figures is Khan 40 Corbyn 33, Hall 22 - I know it's not a VI poll (there will be a big overlap in the Khan and Corbyn "likes"), but that's probably a fair reflection of attitudes. His standing doesn't on those figures remotely lead to Hall winning, and he only needs a 4% swing to put him first.

    His chance are however much better IMO in Islington North. Lots of people who are normally Labour voters and some who aren't (notably Greens, who are strong in the constituency) would be relaxed about having a sole independent leftie voice in Parliament, fulfilling much the same function as Caroline Lucas. I doubt if Starmer would really care too much.
    A more realistic starting point is Khan 25-30, Corbyn 20-25 Hall 25, Others 20
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning

    They're winning around Robotnye. Rybar acknowledged that the UAF had complete control of the village
    Are they, tho?

    BBC:

    "It is hard to assess the significance of the latest claims. Ukrainian officials are extremely tight-lipped when asked for precise details, preferring to allow the fog of war to shroud Kyiv's intentions and extremely reluctant to avoid releasing sensitive information.

    It does not help that the forces closest to the fight sometimes give very different accounts of what is happening at the front.

    Approached by the BBC on Saturday, Ukraine's 46th Air Assault Brigade said fighting was continuing near Russia's first line of defence, but that "no one has yet managed to go beyond the first line"

    https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1698366128735608984?s=20


    Meanwhile,


    "Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

    But Russians outnumber Ukrainians on the battlefield almost three to one, and Russia has a larger population from which to replenish its ranks."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

    The Russians have enough men, arms and ammo that even if the Ukes make progress in the south the Russians can then advance in the north and east, streching Ukraine's numerically smaller army

    It's likely gonna end in a muddy, bloody armistice. The only question is how much territory Ukraine will be forced to yield to get that truce. To my pessimistic mind. There are more upbeat opinions to be had

  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning

    They're winning around Robotnye. Rybar acknowledged that the UAF had complete control of the village
    Usual Leon guff
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    edited September 2023
    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning

    You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
    It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source

    It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    edited September 2023

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    So, we could be spending well north of £400bn per annum in less than 12 years time on just pensions and the NHS combined.

    That's horrific.

    Or if not the NHS and pensions, then an equal or greater amount on the private sector equivalent. Demographics are destiny.
    That and productivity.

    From the David Smith piece GW mentioned earlier:

    Output per hour worked:
    USA £59
    France, Germany £56
    UK £47

    Fix that, and the sums become a lot easier. Countries can choose to spend the money on megabucks wealth or taking all of August as holiday. Or something else. It's that simple and that difficult.

    But it does require acknowledgement by the UK that, at several points in the past (plenty of blame to go round), we have collectively screwed up.
    Funnily enough, importing 5m minimum wage workers over the past decade will do that.
    Fewer than 2mn workers in the UK are paid minimum wage so something about this doesn't add up!
    It never fails to amuse me that Sandpit complains similtaneously about UK’s demographic burden and “minimum wage” immigration…

    …while posting from the UAE.
    One thing we could learn from the UAE is that you don't need to offer any pathway to citizenship for migrant workers.
    Having seen both systems, the way you do it is to offer full immigration with a high minimum wage, say £40k, or to graduates on training schemes. Category 1.

    To deal with shortages in low-wage sectors, you do what the Australians do and offer six-month working visas to under-30s, with the requirement to leave afterwards, and strict enforcement of future visa rejections to anyone overstaying. Category 2.

    For specific issues like nurses, allow 100k Filipinos Cat 1 immigration. They’re going to integrate well, and are generally not problematic communities.

    The real problem, is that it seems to be actually impossible to deport anyone from the UK at the moment.

    UAE has made huge strides in the past few years, towards offering something close to permanent residency to those who contribute. If you can earn $10k a month, you can get a 10-year renewable “Golden Visa”, also there’s visa by investment of $500k or so in business or property.
  • Options
    Terrible performance from England so far
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 51,714
    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning

    You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
    It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source

    It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
    What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.

    The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
  • Options
    Chris said:

    Surely you need a straight poll of first preferences for a particular contest - e.g. Khan versus Corbyn versus Hall - rather than trying to draw conclusions from a list of favourability ratings of a lot of potential candidates?

    Next greater London mayoral race is FPTP.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,175
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    This isn't good. Ukraine struggling - badly - on the Kharkiv front

    Many of us have said it before, they are simply running out of men. Meanwhile the Russians seem better equipped, better trained, and even better motivated. NB this is a usually pro-Kyiv source


    "It also lacks battlefield experience, from low ranks to commanding officers. Nor do they have many options to draw on somebody else's. The year 2022 ground down Ukraine's supply of experienced warfighters to the point where there can be said to be a shortage."

    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/

    Ukraine, I fear, is slowly losing this war. Or at least: not winning

    You are having a laugh saying Russians are better trained, they are mainly just out of prisons or back of beyond, stuck in a WWII tank or with an old pitchfork etc and sent to the front. They have lots of people but not so many real soldiers.
    It's not me saying it, it is the Ukrainian soldiers in that report from a highly pro-Ukrainian source

    It also makes sense. The Ukrainians are absolutely gallant and determined, no doubt, but it is a small country compared to Russia, and the Ukes have lost 200,000 or more to death and injury. They've already lost many (most?) of their properly trained troops, and they are now relying on conscripts who get 3 weeks training in NATO then in they go
    What are you smoking? The actual reports from Ukraine are nothing like that.

    The troops now being deployed to push the Robotyne win down towards Tokmak, are the elite units held back earlier in the year, and working with the new NATO tanks and rockets.
    Can you not read?

    I am referring to this report - I linked it, go see - on the Kharkiv front

    Here it is again:



    https://kyivindependent.com/new-brigade-bears-heavy-brunt-of-russias-onslaught-in-kharkiv-oblast/
This discussion has been closed.