Gordon Brown was a truly chronic PM who was unlucky enough to inherit the fag end of a long period of government by his party. He just about held on because he persuaded a significant number of people that he had "saved the world" and that only he could be trusted to manage the economy in such difficult times. It didn't quite work for him but an international crisis playing to Sunak's area of strength, finances, just might make people pause, if they can be persuaded to forget the Truss fiasco, maybe.
It's a real stretch. I think the tweeters are probably right that it would need SKS disappearing from the scene and a much less attractive option being offered by Labour. Sunak's biggest single problem, even above having a cabinet that makes the muppet ensemble look good, is that people are just not scared of SKS. They can avoid being bored to death by simply not listening to him. The majority of the population are ok with that.
Whilst I agree that Brown wasn't a great PM, I think he did at least give the impression that he actually wanted to do the job. Sure, he was lucky in that the financial crisis played to his strengths - but he genuinely did seem to enjoy dealing with it.
He even had a bit of a glow-up in terms of his personal appearance: he clearly had media training, started wearing much better suits, and stopped doing whatever-it-was that used to make his hair look unwashed. He actually ended his premiership looking better than he did when he started, which is rare for a PM.
Sunak's the opposite - he gives the impression that he's simply not comfortable in the job. He often shows clear signs of exasperation, and he whines about people "playing politics". It's hard not feel that this may be the first time in his life when things haven't gone his way, and I suspect he hates it.
And, in contrast to Brown, he's beginning to look increasingly tired. He's greying at the temples, and growing his hair longer so that he can comb it over the rapidly-spreading bald patch. He's riding the tail end of a fashion wave with those ankle-grazing trousers - it's beginning to look a little desperate, and it's starting to attract comment. He needs to have a good holiday... but hasn't he just had one?
If there were to be a 2008-style crisis now, would Sunak really be able to deal with it? I'm honestly not sure. I think he might be worse than Brown.
Your memory of Gordon Brown is different from mine. I saw someone who had wanted the job forever and then didn't really know what to do with it when he got it. His indecision brought his government grinding to a halt until Mandelson came and sorted things out a bit. The dishonesty of refusing to have a spending review when massive cuts (on the back of a collapse of finance based tax revenues) were so obviously necessary was a gross dereliction of duty.
Sunak, I agree, gives the impression he found it a lot easier to make decisions and have them put into effect at Goldman Sachs than he does now. He comes across as exasperated by the messy nonsense of democracy.
That's a good point about Mandelson steadying the ship towards the end. Is there a similar figure who could do the same for Sunak?
Step forward the Queen across the water...Ms Truss!
After all it was her speech that precipitated this weeks screeching U turn by Sunak. If she gets a better reception at Conference than Sunak, the game is up for him.
Gordon Brown was a truly chronic PM who was unlucky enough to inherit the fag end of a long period of government by his party. He just about held on because he persuaded a significant number of people that he had "saved the world" and that only he could be trusted to manage the economy in such difficult times. It didn't quite work for him but an international crisis playing to Sunak's area of strength, finances, just might make people pause, if they can be persuaded to forget the Truss fiasco, maybe.
It's a real stretch. I think the tweeters are probably right that it would need SKS disappearing from the scene and a much less attractive option being offered by Labour. Sunak's biggest single problem, even above having a cabinet that makes the muppet ensemble look good, is that people are just not scared of SKS. They can avoid being bored to death by simply not listening to him. The majority of the population are ok with that.
Whilst I agree that Brown wasn't a great PM, I think he did at least give the impression that he actually wanted to do the job. Sure, he was lucky in that the financial crisis played to his strengths - but he genuinely did seem to enjoy dealing with it.
He even had a bit of a glow-up in terms of his personal appearance: he clearly had media training, started wearing much better suits, and stopped doing whatever-it-was that used to make his hair look unwashed. He actually ended his premiership looking better than he did when he started, which is rare for a PM.
Sunak's the opposite - he gives the impression that he's simply not comfortable in the job. He often shows clear signs of exasperation, and he whines about people "playing politics". It's hard not feel that this may be the first time in his life when things haven't gone his way, and I suspect he hates it.
And, in contrast to Brown, he's beginning to look increasingly tired. He's greying at the temples, and growing his hair longer so that he can comb it over the rapidly-spreading bald patch. He's riding the tail end of a fashion wave with those ankle-grazing trousers - it's beginning to look a little desperate, and it's starting to attract comment. He needs to have a good holiday... but hasn't he just had one?
If there were to be a 2008-style crisis now, would Sunak really be able to deal with it? I'm honestly not sure. I think he might be worse than Brown.
Your memory of Gordon Brown is different from mine. I saw someone who had wanted the job forever and then didn't really know what to do with it when he got it. His indecision brought his government grinding to a halt until Mandelson came and sorted things out a bit. The dishonesty of refusing to have a spending review when massive cuts (on the back of a collapse of finance based tax revenues) were so obviously necessary was a gross dereliction of duty.
Sunak, I agree, gives the impression he found it a lot easier to make decisions and have them put into effect at Goldman Sachs than he does now. He comes across as exasperated by the messy nonsense of democracy.
That's a good point about Mandelson steadying the ship towards the end. Is there a similar figure who could do the same for Sunak?
Step forward the Queen across the water...Ms Truss!
After all it was her speech that precipitated this weeks screeching U turn by Sunak. If she gets a better reception at Conference than Sunak, the game is up for him.
She'd absolutely be a better PM than him, the problem was that the mini budget was such a balls up.
However she had already u-turned and appointed Hunt before she resigned. What has Sunak meaningfully changed economically for the better that she hadn't already reversed on?
I'm reminded of a story someone I knew who worked for a multinational used to love saying. Early in his career he realised he'd made a terrible mistake and he approached his boss and explained the mistake, which would cost the firm a million dollars, and offered his resignation. The boss said "why would I want you to resign, I've just spent a million dollars training you."
Truss started off with a catastrophic misjudgement but she had the right ambition and was open to course correction. Sunak is just useless and doesn't even have an aspirational ambition.
Antivaxxers, flat earthers, fake moon landings, adrenochrome.....it's not surprising that if you believe one conspiracy, you may as well believe them all.
Gordon Brown was a truly chronic PM who was unlucky enough to inherit the fag end of a long period of government by his party. He just about held on because he persuaded a significant number of people that he had "saved the world" and that only he could be trusted to manage the economy in such difficult times. It didn't quite work for him but an international crisis playing to Sunak's area of strength, finances, just might make people pause, if they can be persuaded to forget the Truss fiasco, maybe.
It's a real stretch. I think the tweeters are probably right that it would need SKS disappearing from the scene and a much less attractive option being offered by Labour. Sunak's biggest single problem, even above having a cabinet that makes the muppet ensemble look good, is that people are just not scared of SKS. They can avoid being bored to death by simply not listening to him. The majority of the population are ok with that.
Whilst I agree that Brown wasn't a great PM, I think he did at least give the impression that he actually wanted to do the job. Sure, he was lucky in that the financial crisis played to his strengths - but he genuinely did seem to enjoy dealing with it.
He even had a bit of a glow-up in terms of his personal appearance: he clearly had media training, started wearing much better suits, and stopped doing whatever-it-was that used to make his hair look unwashed. He actually ended his premiership looking better than he did when he started, which is rare for a PM.
Sunak's the opposite - he gives the impression that he's simply not comfortable in the job. He often shows clear signs of exasperation, and he whines about people "playing politics". It's hard not feel that this may be the first time in his life when things haven't gone his way, and I suspect he hates it.
And, in contrast to Brown, he's beginning to look increasingly tired. He's greying at the temples, and growing his hair longer so that he can comb it over the rapidly-spreading bald patch. He's riding the tail end of a fashion wave with those ankle-grazing trousers - it's beginning to look a little desperate, and it's starting to attract comment. He needs to have a good holiday... but hasn't he just had one?
If there were to be a 2008-style crisis now, would Sunak really be able to deal with it? I'm honestly not sure. I think he might be worse than Brown.
Your memory of Gordon Brown is different from mine. I saw someone who had wanted the job forever and then didn't really know what to do with it when he got it. His indecision brought his government grinding to a halt until Mandelson came and sorted things out a bit. The dishonesty of refusing to have a spending review when massive cuts (on the back of a collapse of finance based tax revenues) were so obviously necessary was a gross dereliction of duty.
Sunak, I agree, gives the impression he found it a lot easier to make decisions and have them put into effect at Goldman Sachs than he does now. He comes across as exasperated by the messy nonsense of democracy.
That's a good point about Mandelson steadying the ship towards the end. Is there a similar figure who could do the same for Sunak?
The obvious equivalent would be Osborne from the Lords but I can't see him being willing to come back into the fray. It was Osborne, above all, who made the quad work and kept the Coalition government together. That's what Sunak needs. Someone to put a bit of stick about.
‘I screwed up': NYT columnist addresses viral inflation tweet https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/david-brooks-apologizes-tweet-00117794 ...Brooks’ post on X — formerly known as Twitter — which read, “This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible,” was accompanied by a picture of the meal that included a burger, fries and an alcoholic beverage. The post garnered over 37 million views and generated a flurry of criticism and memes, with many users mocking him for being out of touch and noting that Brooks’ drink was a likely driver of his high tab.
The restaurant responded in a Facebook post, noting that Brooks’ bar tab accounted for almost 80 percent of his bill...
‘I screwed up': NYT columnist addresses viral inflation tweet https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/david-brooks-apologizes-tweet-00117794 ...Brooks’ post on X — formerly known as Twitter — which read, “This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible,” was accompanied by a picture of the meal that included a burger, fries and an alcoholic beverage. The post garnered over 37 million views and generated a flurry of criticism and memes, with many users mocking him for being out of touch and noting that Brooks’ drink was a likely driver of his high tab.
The restaurant responded in a Facebook post, noting that Brooks’ bar tab accounted for almost 80 percent of his bill...
So NY times columnists know nothing about the US, either?
Antivaxxers, flat earthers, fake moon landings, adrenochrome.....it's not surprising that if you believe one conspiracy, you may as well believe them all.
Antivaxxers, flat earthers, fake moon landings, adrenochrome.....it's not surprising that if you believe one conspiracy, you may as well believe them all.
Governments have spent too much time spinning and lying to voters.
‘I screwed up': NYT columnist addresses viral inflation tweet https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/david-brooks-apologizes-tweet-00117794 ...Brooks’ post on X — formerly known as Twitter — which read, “This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible,” was accompanied by a picture of the meal that included a burger, fries and an alcoholic beverage. The post garnered over 37 million views and generated a flurry of criticism and memes, with many users mocking him for being out of touch and noting that Brooks’ drink was a likely driver of his high tab.
The restaurant responded in a Facebook post, noting that Brooks’ bar tab accounted for almost 80 percent of his bill...
‘I screwed up': NYT columnist addresses viral inflation tweet https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/david-brooks-apologizes-tweet-00117794 ...Brooks’ post on X — formerly known as Twitter — which read, “This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible,” was accompanied by a picture of the meal that included a burger, fries and an alcoholic beverage. The post garnered over 37 million views and generated a flurry of criticism and memes, with many users mocking him for being out of touch and noting that Brooks’ drink was a likely driver of his high tab.
The restaurant responded in a Facebook post, noting that Brooks’ bar tab accounted for almost 80 percent of his bill...
So NY times columnists know nothing about the US, either?
‘I screwed up': NYT columnist addresses viral inflation tweet https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/david-brooks-apologizes-tweet-00117794 ...Brooks’ post on X — formerly known as Twitter — which read, “This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible,” was accompanied by a picture of the meal that included a burger, fries and an alcoholic beverage. The post garnered over 37 million views and generated a flurry of criticism and memes, with many users mocking him for being out of touch and noting that Brooks’ drink was a likely driver of his high tab.
The restaurant responded in a Facebook post, noting that Brooks’ bar tab accounted for almost 80 percent of his bill...
NYT hack told a barefaced lie, because he thought he wouldn’t be called on it.
The restaurant called him on it, and now he’s backtracking.
Yet we still wonder why journalists are down there with politicians, in opinion polls of public trust?
Antivaxxers, flat earthers, fake moon landings, adrenochrome.....it's not surprising that if you believe one conspiracy, you may as well believe them all.
Antivaxxers, flat earthers, fake moon landings, adrenochrome.....it's not surprising that if you believe one conspiracy, you may as well believe them all.
Governments have spent too much time spinning and lying to voters.
You can foolsome of the people etc.
I liked GWB's version: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want."
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Why, do you think that Hunt is going to reverse Sunak's fiscal drag policy?
Currently nominal wages are growing faster than inflation, but real take-home wages are still falling due to fiscal drag.
No feel good factor if any wage growth is being taken in fiscal drag and not taken home.
The starting rate for tax will have to go up as the state pension will be going over it, and it would add loads of pensioners onto self assessment, who won't know how to fill it or even that they have to.
Current Full State Pension: £10600 per annum. Current Starting Rate of Tax: £12,500.
That's quite a bit of headroom. But it could be an issue if inflation does not fall to target range within 1-2 years.
I make it average increase of just over 4% would stop it hitting £12500 by 2027-28.
Yes, apologies, I'm wrong. Still an extra 650,000 pensioners to pay (minimal) tax and deal with admin for HMRC and themselves. Seems obvious just to raise the threshold even as someone who wants some generational balance.
"The Sunday Times", Peter Kellner, Sunday Oct 27 2024.
"...In retrospect the Sunak victory was inevitable. Pollsters, still using the polling weights from the 2019 election, did not change them to take account of the "flight to safety" initiated by Covid. That, combined with a higher-than-expected turnout by the elderly frightened - "Querulous Man" as such voters were unkindly dubbed - resulted in a single-digit lead and a small tho' workable majority.
It had happened before. In 1970 an electorate frightened by an immigration wave and excused by Enoch Powell turned out and gave Edward Heath a surprise majority in that decade's most notable upset. A similar scenario played out in October 2024..."
[This is theoretically possible. All polling is based on assumptions and those assumptions are broadly based on the last election. If something dramatic happens such as Covid that causes people's behavior to change, this will not be picked up by the polls. Pollsters have trouble with setting the weights and from memory got them wrong in 2015 and 2017.]
I've got more sympathy with Patel (not something I'd say often) on the latter.
39 migrants dying in the back of a lorry is a tragedy and they have died at the hands of ruthless criminals. Who those ruthless criminals are is a different matter, its entirely possible the people accused at trial aren't the ruthless criminals concerned.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Why, do you think that Hunt is going to reverse Sunak's fiscal drag policy?
Currently nominal wages are growing faster than inflation, but real take-home wages are still falling due to fiscal drag.
No feel good factor if any wage growth is being taken in fiscal drag and not taken home.
The starting rate for tax will have to go up as the state pension will be going over it, and it would add loads of pensioners onto self assessment, who won't know how to fill it or even that they have to.
Current Full State Pension: £10600 per annum. Current Starting Rate of Tax: £12,500.
That's quite a bit of headroom. But it could be an issue if inflation does not fall to target range within 1-2 years.
I make it average increase of just over 4% would stop it hitting £12500 by 2027-28.
Yes, apologies, I'm wrong. Still an extra 650,000 pensioners to pay (minimal) tax and deal with admin for HMRC and themselves. Seems obvious just to raise the threshold even as someone who wants some generational balance.
"The Sunday Times", Peter Kellner, Sunday Oct 27 2024.
"...In retrospect the Sunak victory was inevitable. Pollsters, still using the polling weights from the 2019 election, did not change them to take account of the "flight to safety" initiated by Covid. That, combined with a higher-than-expected turnout by the elderly frightened - "Querulous Man" as such voters were unkindly dubbed - resulted in a single-digit lead and a small tho' workable majority.
It had happened before. In 1970 an electorate frightened by an immigration wave and excused by Enoch Powell turned out and gave Edward Heath a surprise majority in that decade's most notable upset. A similar scenario played out in October 2024..."
[This is theoretically possible. All polling is based on assumptions and those assumptions are broadly based on the last election. If something dramatic happens such as Covid that causes people's behavior to change, this will not be picked up by the polls. Pollsters have trouble with setting the weights and from memory got them wrong in 2015 and 2017.]
At least Kellner agrees with me (and a few others on here), over the date of the election!
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Why, do you think that Hunt is going to reverse Sunak's fiscal drag policy?
Currently nominal wages are growing faster than inflation, but real take-home wages are still falling due to fiscal drag.
No feel good factor if any wage growth is being taken in fiscal drag and not taken home.
The starting rate for tax will have to go up as the state pension will be going over it, and it would add loads of pensioners onto self assessment, who won't know how to fill it or even that they have to.
Current Full State Pension: £10600 per annum. Current Starting Rate of Tax: £12,500.
That's quite a bit of headroom. But it could be an issue if inflation does not fall to target range within 1-2 years.
I make it average increase of just over 4% would stop it hitting £12500 by 2027-28.
Yes, apologies, I'm wrong. Still an extra 650,000 pensioners to pay (minimal) tax and deal with admin for HMRC and themselves. Seems obvious just to raise the threshold even as someone who wants some generational balance.
Has there been a discussion about a route back for Boris lately?
How about:
2024. Tories lose election. Sunak resigns as leader and is replaced.
2026. Tories failing to make impression in polls. Starmer seems good bet for second term. Tory unrest.
Boris publishes memoirs. Sensational success. Completes international book tour with a triumphant reception in Kiev. Special edition signed by BJ and VZ raises millions for Ukrainian war orphans.
Polling puts a Boris-led Tory Party streets ahead of Labour.
2027. By-election. Immediate speculation. Will Boris stand? He does. To questioning about his record and various turpitudes, he replies: "Let the voters decide." Wins seat with huge swing.
2028 VONC in LOTO. Leadership election. Boris wins.
2029. General Election. Boris easily out-campaigns Sir Keir.
But the problem for the Lib Dems is that their support is concentrated amount older, more prosperous voters in the South who are notoriously nimbyish and inheritance-hogging, and possibly anti-immigration too (since they are older).
The article fails to address that paradox.
Having said all of that, I think the Lib Dems should actively promote a return to the single market, either via EFTA or a Swiss-style arrangement, and the current high levels of migration give them enough of a fig leaf to stand down criticisms on that front.
I think an anti-monopoly push is also bang-on. “Monopolies” have even fewer friends than oil companies, non-doms, and buy-to-rent landlords.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Why, do you think that Hunt is going to reverse Sunak's fiscal drag policy?
Currently nominal wages are growing faster than inflation, but real take-home wages are still falling due to fiscal drag.
No feel good factor if any wage growth is being taken in fiscal drag and not taken home.
The starting rate for tax will have to go up as the state pension will be going over it, and it would add loads of pensioners onto self assessment, who won't know how to fill it or even that they have to.
Current Full State Pension: £10600 per annum. Current Starting Rate of Tax: £12,500.
That's quite a bit of headroom. But it could be an issue if inflation does not fall to target range within 1-2 years.
I make it average increase of just over 4% would stop it hitting £12500 by 2027-28.
Yes, apologies, I'm wrong. Still an extra 650,000 pensioners to pay (minimal) tax and deal with admin for HMRC and themselves. Seems obvious just to raise the threshold even as someone who wants some generational balance.
It shouldn't be beyond the wit of government to automatically deduct the tax at source -- the article says this already happens for people with both state and private pensions, so it would just be extending it to cover the state pension only case. So I'm sympathetic to the idea of avoiding the overlap but I don't think the "admin for the pensioner" argument holds water, and the "admin for HMRC " argument is a little shaky.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Why, do you think that Hunt is going to reverse Sunak's fiscal drag policy?
Currently nominal wages are growing faster than inflation, but real take-home wages are still falling due to fiscal drag.
No feel good factor if any wage growth is being taken in fiscal drag and not taken home.
The starting rate for tax will have to go up as the state pension will be going over it, and it would add loads of pensioners onto self assessment, who won't know how to fill it or even that they have to.
Current Full State Pension: £10600 per annum. Current Starting Rate of Tax: £12,500.
That's quite a bit of headroom. But it could be an issue if inflation does not fall to target range within 1-2 years.
I make it average increase of just over 4% would stop it hitting £12500 by 2027-28.
Yes, apologies, I'm wrong. Still an extra 650,000 pensioners to pay (minimal) tax and deal with admin for HMRC and themselves. Seems obvious just to raise the threshold even as someone who wants some generational balance.
It shouldn't be beyond the wit of government to automatically deduct the tax at source -- the article says this already happens for people with both state and private pensions, so it would just be extending it to cover the state pension only case. So I'm sympathetic to the idea of avoiding the overlap but I don't think the "admin for the pensioner" argument holds water, and the "admin for HMRC " argument is a little shaky.
That assumes people arent also getting income from savings. Fine when savings rates were 1%, not so much when you can get 6% on a 1 year fix.
It was taking several hours to get through to HMRC lines last year. I doubt they will get any additional staff to deal with their new "customers".
I'm in the market for a 2/3 tier (probably not an electric gadget) veg / dumpling steamer - can anyone recommend?
My normal goto is the local Procook shop, but their versions currently start at £79 and I think they have stopped the "free (quite nice) kitchen knife with orders over £50" sweetener.
Can anyone comment on whether Bamboo Steamers are worth the pfaff? The Procook one of these is £19.
The time to take risks/be radical is after a GE, not before.
No, not really. LibDems are flat-lining at a low level and Davey has zero name recognition. Contrast with Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy. Or Nick Clegg. They need to do something distinctive. What's the point in waiting until after GE when they may be struggling to match SNP in numbers at Westminster.
The time to take risks/be radical is after a GE, not before.
No, not really. LibDems are flat-lining at a low level and Davey has zero name recognition. Contrast with Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy. Or Nick Clegg. They need to do something distinctive. What's the point in waiting until after GE when they may be struggling to match SNP in numbers at Westminster.
Though if you're going to take a risk, take a smart one.
I'm in the market for a 2/3 tier (probably not an electric gadget) veg / dumpling steamer - can anyone recommend?
My normal goto is the local Procook shop, but their versions currently start at £79 and I think they have stopped the "free (quite nice) kitchen knife with orders over £50" sweetener.
Can anyone comment on whether Bamboo Steamers are worth the pfaff? The Procook one of these is £19.
I have a veg steamer insert and a bamboo steamer as well. I use the bamboo for fish and it is a bit of a pfaff
For veg I bought a Meyer set 20 years ago, still going strong. This might be what you need
I'm in the market for a 2/3 tier (probably not an electric gadget) veg / dumpling steamer - can anyone recommend?
My normal goto is the local Procook shop, but their versions currently start at £79 and I think they have stopped the "free (quite nice) kitchen knife with orders over £50" sweetener.
Can anyone comment on whether Bamboo Steamers are worth the pfaff? The Procook one of these is £19.
I have a veg steamer insert and a bamboo steamer as well. I use the bamboo for fish and it is a bit of a pfaff
For veg I bought a Meyer set 20 years ago, still going strong. This might be what you need
Cheers - yes I have plenty of pans. I have normally used a metal sieve for steaming, but have developed a taste for steamed dumplings where a steamer may be convenient.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Why, do you think that Hunt is going to reverse Sunak's fiscal drag policy?
Currently nominal wages are growing faster than inflation, but real take-home wages are still falling due to fiscal drag.
No feel good factor if any wage growth is being taken in fiscal drag and not taken home.
The starting rate for tax will have to go up as the state pension will be going over it, and it would add loads of pensioners onto self assessment, who won't know how to fill it or even that they have to.
Not necessarily. HMRC have developed the habit of guessing your tax rather than letting you do a proper SA form. Using info from payroll and banks etc. Sometimews they might even get it right. But it still causes angst and worry.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Why, do you think that Hunt is going to reverse Sunak's fiscal drag policy?
Currently nominal wages are growing faster than inflation, but real take-home wages are still falling due to fiscal drag.
No feel good factor if any wage growth is being taken in fiscal drag and not taken home.
The starting rate for tax will have to go up as the state pension will be going over it, and it would add loads of pensioners onto self assessment, who won't know how to fill it or even that they have to.
Current Full State Pension: £10600 per annum. Current Starting Rate of Tax: £12,500.
That's quite a bit of headroom. But it could be an issue if inflation does not fall to target range within 1-2 years.
I make it average increase of just over 4% would stop it hitting £12500 by 2027-28.
Yes, apologies, I'm wrong. Still an extra 650,000 pensioners to pay (minimal) tax and deal with admin for HMRC and themselves. Seems obvious just to raise the threshold even as someone who wants some generational balance.
It shouldn't be beyond the wit of government to automatically deduct the tax at source -- the article says this already happens for people with both state and private pensions, so it would just be extending it to cover the state pension only case. So I'm sympathetic to the idea of avoiding the overlap but I don't think the "admin for the pensioner" argument holds water, and the "admin for HMRC " argument is a little shaky.
DWP don't deduct ICT from the State Retirement Pension, no idea why.
We have had elderly people in at Citizens Advice whose only income is the State Pension but because their SRP includes the earnings related part (SERPS) which takes them over the ICT personal allowance, they get a tax demand from HMRC which they often have no idea what to do with, having never seen one before.
Going to happen more and more with triple lock and frozen ICT personal allowances.
Gordon Brown was a truly chronic PM who was unlucky enough to inherit the fag end of a long period of government by his party. He just about held on because he persuaded a significant number of people that he had "saved the world" and that only he could be trusted to manage the economy in such difficult times. It didn't quite work for him but an international crisis playing to Sunak's area of strength, finances, just might make people pause, if they can be persuaded to forget the Truss fiasco, maybe.
It's a real stretch. I think the tweeters are probably right that it would need SKS disappearing from the scene and a much less attractive option being offered by Labour. Sunak's biggest single problem, even above having a cabinet that makes the muppet ensemble look good, is that people are just not scared of SKS. They can avoid being bored to death by simply not listening to him. The majority of the population are ok with that.
Whilst I agree that Brown wasn't a great PM, I think he did at least give the impression that he actually wanted to do the job. Sure, he was lucky in that the financial crisis played to his strengths - but he genuinely did seem to enjoy dealing with it.
He even had a bit of a glow-up in terms of his personal appearance: he clearly had media training, started wearing much better suits, and stopped doing whatever-it-was that used to make his hair look unwashed. He actually ended his premiership looking better than he did when he started, which is rare for a PM.
Sunak's the opposite - he gives the impression that he's simply not comfortable in the job. He often shows clear signs of exasperation, and he whines about people "playing politics". It's hard not feel that this may be the first time in his life when things haven't gone his way, and I suspect he hates it.
And, in contrast to Brown, he's beginning to look increasingly tired. He's greying at the temples, and growing his hair longer so that he can comb it over the rapidly-spreading bald patch. He's riding the tail end of a fashion wave with those ankle-grazing trousers - it's beginning to look a little desperate, and it's starting to attract comment. He needs to have a good holiday... but hasn't he just had one?
If there were to be a 2008-style crisis now, would Sunak really be able to deal with it? I'm honestly not sure. I think he might be worse than Brown.
Your memory of Gordon Brown is different from mine. I saw someone who had wanted the job forever and then didn't really know what to do with it when he got it. His indecision brought his government grinding to a halt until Mandelson came and sorted things out a bit. The dishonesty of refusing to have a spending review when massive cuts (on the back of a collapse of finance based tax revenues) were so obviously necessary was a gross dereliction of duty.
Sunak, I agree, gives the impression he found it a lot easier to make decisions and have them put into effect at Goldman Sachs than he does now. He comes across as exasperated by the messy nonsense of democracy.
That's a good point about Mandelson steadying the ship towards the end. Is there a similar figure who could do the same for Sunak?
Step forward the Queen across the water...Ms Truss!
After all it was her speech that precipitated this weeks screeching U turn by Sunak. If she gets a better reception at Conference than Sunak, the game is up for him.
If the Queen across the Water steps forward, won't she end up in the sea?
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
That can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. A bill on sexual orientation would have gone thru both houses. As I have commented before, politics is about priorities. To Sunak, bans on nonexistent meat bans and smoking have a higher priority than a ban on gay conversion therapy. And there y'go.
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Has there been a discussion about a route back for Boris lately?
How about:
2024. Tories lose election. Sunak resigns as leader and is replaced.
2026. Tories failing to make impression in polls. Starmer seems good bet for second term. Tory unrest.
Boris publishes memoirs. Sensational success. Completes international book tour with a triumphant reception in Kiev. Special edition signed by BJ and VZ raises millions for Ukrainian war orphans.
Polling puts a Boris-led Tory Party streets ahead of Labour.
2027. By-election. Immediate speculation. Will Boris stand? He does. To questioning about his record and various turpitudes, he replies: "Let the voters decide." Wins seat with huge swing.
2028 VONC in LOTO. Leadership election. Boris wins.
2029. General Election. Boris easily out-campaigns Sir Keir.
Not likely,but who knows?
By "easily out- campaigns" do you mean hides in a fridge, drives several JCBs through several piles of boxes, lies through his teeth and talks utter b*ll*cks for six weeks straight? He could of course also repeat his zip wire trick.
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Upsets everyone, sooner or later.
"Conversion therapy" should be banned , not only on the moral grounds of its outright offensiveness, but because it has zero basis in science. It is therefore quack science and should be banned on that basis if no other.
Gordon Brown was a truly chronic PM who was unlucky enough to inherit the fag end of a long period of government by his party. He just about held on because he persuaded a significant number of people that he had "saved the world" and that only he could be trusted to manage the economy in such difficult times. It didn't quite work for him but an international crisis playing to Sunak's area of strength, finances, just might make people pause, if they can be persuaded to forget the Truss fiasco, maybe.
It's a real stretch. I think the tweeters are probably right that it would need SKS disappearing from the scene and a much less attractive option being offered by Labour. Sunak's biggest single problem, even above having a cabinet that makes the muppet ensemble look good, is that people are just not scared of SKS. They can avoid being bored to death by simply not listening to him. The majority of the population are ok with that.
Whilst I agree that Brown wasn't a great PM, I think he did at least give the impression that he actually wanted to do the job. Sure, he was lucky in that the financial crisis played to his strengths - but he genuinely did seem to enjoy dealing with it.
He even had a bit of a glow-up in terms of his personal appearance: he clearly had media training, started wearing much better suits, and stopped doing whatever-it-was that used to make his hair look unwashed. He actually ended his premiership looking better than he did when he started, which is rare for a PM.
Sunak's the opposite - he gives the impression that he's simply not comfortable in the job. He often shows clear signs of exasperation, and he whines about people "playing politics". It's hard not feel that this may be the first time in his life when things haven't gone his way, and I suspect he hates it.
And, in contrast to Brown, he's beginning to look increasingly tired. He's greying at the temples, and growing his hair longer so that he can comb it over the rapidly-spreading bald patch. He's riding the tail end of a fashion wave with those ankle-grazing trousers - it's beginning to look a little desperate, and it's starting to attract comment. He needs to have a good holiday... but hasn't he just had one?
If there were to be a 2008-style crisis now, would Sunak really be able to deal with it? I'm honestly not sure. I think he might be worse than Brown.
Your memory of Gordon Brown is different from mine. I saw someone who had wanted the job forever and then didn't really know what to do with it when he got it. His indecision brought his government grinding to a halt until Mandelson came and sorted things out a bit. The dishonesty of refusing to have a spending review when massive cuts (on the back of a collapse of finance based tax revenues) were so obviously necessary was a gross dereliction of duty.
Sunak, I agree, gives the impression he found it a lot easier to make decisions and have them put into effect at Goldman Sachs than he does now. He comes across as exasperated by the messy nonsense of democracy.
That's a good point about Mandelson steadying the ship towards the end. Is there a similar figure who could do the same for Sunak?
Step forward the Queen across the water...Ms Truss!
After all it was her speech that precipitated this weeks screeching U turn by Sunak. If she gets a better reception at Conference than Sunak, the game is up for him.
If the Queen across the Water steps forward, won't she end up in the sea?
The Conservatives probably need someone capable of walking on water, or a similar level of miracle.
(For avoidance of doubt, that someone isn't Truss.)
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
That can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. A bill on sexual orientation would have gone thru both houses. As I have commented before, politics is about priorities. To Sunak, bans on nonexistent meat bans and smoking have a higher priority than a ban on gay conversion therapy. And there y'go.
Don't kid yourself. If Sunak thinks a little genteel queer-bashing will shore up his "core vote" and perhaps even save his political skin, he won't shirk the hard decisions.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
It's worse than that. There is no legal definition of therapy or therapist. A lot of nice, middle class people currently earning lucrative hourly rates may have to get some actual qualifications and professional supervision if there were legislation.
In all seriousness, not there. Introduction of predators into island populations is a major problem everywhere as it is so disruptive to the ecosystem with all sorts of knock on effects. Stoats in mainland UK are Ok, in Orkney etc not OK because the local wildlife is not used to them, nests in the "wrong" places, etc.
Gordon Brown was a truly chronic PM who was unlucky enough to inherit the fag end of a long period of government by his party. He just about held on because he persuaded a significant number of people that he had "saved the world" and that only he could be trusted to manage the economy in such difficult times. It didn't quite work for him but an international crisis playing to Sunak's area of strength, finances, just might make people pause, if they can be persuaded to forget the Truss fiasco, maybe.
It's a real stretch. I think the tweeters are probably right that it would need SKS disappearing from the scene and a much less attractive option being offered by Labour. Sunak's biggest single problem, even above having a cabinet that makes the muppet ensemble look good, is that people are just not scared of SKS. They can avoid being bored to death by simply not listening to him. The majority of the population are ok with that.
Whilst I agree that Brown wasn't a great PM, I think he did at least give the impression that he actually wanted to do the job. Sure, he was lucky in that the financial crisis played to his strengths - but he genuinely did seem to enjoy dealing with it.
He even had a bit of a glow-up in terms of his personal appearance: he clearly had media training, started wearing much better suits, and stopped doing whatever-it-was that used to make his hair look unwashed. He actually ended his premiership looking better than he did when he started, which is rare for a PM.
Sunak's the opposite - he gives the impression that he's simply not comfortable in the job. He often shows clear signs of exasperation, and he whines about people "playing politics". It's hard not feel that this may be the first time in his life when things haven't gone his way, and I suspect he hates it.
And, in contrast to Brown, he's beginning to look increasingly tired. He's greying at the temples, and growing his hair longer so that he can comb it over the rapidly-spreading bald patch. He's riding the tail end of a fashion wave with those ankle-grazing trousers - it's beginning to look a little desperate, and it's starting to attract comment. He needs to have a good holiday... but hasn't he just had one?
If there were to be a 2008-style crisis now, would Sunak really be able to deal with it? I'm honestly not sure. I think he might be worse than Brown.
Your memory of Gordon Brown is different from mine. I saw someone who had wanted the job forever and then didn't really know what to do with it when he got it. His indecision brought his government grinding to a halt until Mandelson came and sorted things out a bit. The dishonesty of refusing to have a spending review when massive cuts (on the back of a collapse of finance based tax revenues) were so obviously necessary was a gross dereliction of duty.
Sunak, I agree, gives the impression he found it a lot easier to make decisions and have them put into effect at Goldman Sachs than he does now. He comes across as exasperated by the messy nonsense of democracy.
That's a good point about Mandelson steadying the ship towards the end. Is there a similar figure who could do the same for Sunak?
Step forward the Queen across the water...Ms Truss!
After all it was her speech that precipitated this weeks screeching U turn by Sunak. If she gets a better reception at Conference than Sunak, the game is up for him.
If the Queen across the Water steps forward, won't she end up in the sea?
Not necessarily, if she follows Raab's geographical advice.
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Upsets everyone, sooner or later.
"Conversion therapy" should be banned , not only on the moral grounds of its outright offensiveness, but because it has zero basis in science. It is therefore quack science and should be banned on that basis if no other.
That too. But it isn't a political criterion. Merely a medical or scientific one. And see also Dixiedean's point.
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Upsets everyone, sooner or later.
"Conversion therapy" should be banned , not only on the moral grounds of its outright offensiveness, but because it has zero basis in science. It is therefore quack science and should be banned on that basis if no other.
The problem comes when everything except aggressive “gender affirming care”, becomes labelled pejoratively as “conversion therapy” - when much of the time, it’s simply the medical practice of psycology and psychiatry.
Wildlife is really important for tourism there, and alien predators can do huge damage.
Since when did stoats become aliens?
On the islands. Hence the impact on naive populations.
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
There was also an (I believe) English cleric who introduced seven hedgehogs onto South Uist in the 70's - with consequent devastation on numbers of ground-nesting waders.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
That can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. A bill on sexual orientation would have gone thru both houses. As I have commented before, politics is about priorities. To Sunak, bans on nonexistent meat bans and smoking have a higher priority than a ban on gay conversion therapy. And there y'go.
Except. Replace trans with gay in the example above and it isn't so easy.
Wildlife is really important for tourism there, and alien predators can do huge damage.
Since when did stoats become aliens?
On the islands. Hence the impact on naive populations.
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
There was also an (I believe) English cleric who introduced seven hedgehogs onto South Uist in the 70's - with consequent devastation on numbers of ground-nesting waders.
Wildlife is really important for tourism there, and alien predators can do huge damage.
Since when did stoats become aliens?
On the islands. Hence the impact on naive populations.
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
There was also an (I believe) English cleric who introduced seven hedgehogs onto South Uist in the 70's - with consequent devastation on numbers of ground-nesting waders.
That's an excellent example of an intrusive carnivore on islands. Greatly reduced bird breeding success. Still getting rid of them island by island. .
PS This is very revealing - over 50 hedgehogs per sq km of machair, killing a significant proportion of chicks, and yet not particularly dependent on them - so no way will they become extinct themselves when the birds leave.
“Sunak is Hitler, who must be entirely vanquished” is maybe a tad unfair and Godwinish, but I get the gist.
Putin is in a similar position now. Russia didn’t quite get the memo about the end of empire in 1991.
Sunak is Hitler and Putin is what you get when this site becomes an angry echo chamber, with everyone putting the boot in, and those offering an alternative viewpoint getting fingered as enablers or bullied off.
It's exactly where we're at.
I'm not one to put much stock in "likes" but the fact that Leon's absurdity got zero likes and pretty much a tumbleweed response is rather indicative that people are clued up to Leon's trolling and its not representative of views on Sunak.
Sunak is an awful PM. He's no Hitler, the UK has never had a Hitler.
I don't set much store by likes, to be honest.
Some of the best posts on here get zero or, at best, one or two likes, whereas some really rather poor ones get lots - the driving fact is that they capture the emotional zeitgeist of those logged on and regularly active on here, which is partial and social - not rational.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
It's worse than that. There is no legal definition of therapy or therapist. A lot of nice, middle class people currently earning lucrative hourly rates may have to get some actual qualifications and professional supervision if there were legislation.
Yup - and the qualifications don't guarantee much. There is at least one Harley Street character with all the degree and licenses you could wish for, who is selling hard core American Evangelical attitudes to these issues.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
That can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. A bill on sexual orientation would have gone thru both houses. As I have commented before, politics is about priorities. To Sunak, bans on nonexistent meat bans and smoking have a higher priority than a ban on gay conversion therapy. And there y'go.
Except. Replace trans with gay in the example above and it isn't so easy.
Not so easy to see why you wouldn't send your child for a couple of years psychiatric treatment if they "think they might be gay"?
In all seriousness, not there. Introduction of predators into island populations is a major problem everywhere as it is so disruptive to the ecosystem with all sorts of knock on effects. Stoats in mainland UK are Ok, in Orkney etc not OK because the local wildlife is not used to them, nests in the "wrong" places, etc.
Ah right, so the stoat is introduced and not indigenous. A similar problem as they have in England with several species which are, basically, driving the indigenous species to existence. Crayfish being one that leaps to mind.
I personally think the Tories will be very likely obliterated at the next GE, and almost certainly at least defeated. I believe it would be in the best interests of the country for Labour not to have a big majority as they are far too irresponsible to be given it (we need to remember this was the party that thought we should have Jeremy Corbyn and his fellow travellers to run the country - which was even dumber than the Tories giving us Boris Johnson).
I could see a scenario where an unexpected economic upturn combined with some major missteps by Labour with big arguments with the Corbynite left resurfacing, causing the electorate to start to question Labour's real ability to govern, and by a sudden surprise, "shy Tories" decide to vote after all. Scotland remains with the Scottish Nasty Party, and the huge electoral swing required by Labour is too much of a mountain to climb. Sunak clings to power with a majority of one.
That is my scenario. Not likely but possible, and significantly less unpleasant than nuclear war.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
That can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. A bill on sexual orientation would have gone thru both houses. As I have commented before, politics is about priorities. To Sunak, bans on nonexistent meat bans and smoking have a higher priority than a ban on gay conversion therapy. And there y'go.
Except. Replace trans with gay in the example above and it isn't so easy.
Then again, some people who thought they were gay latter came to the conclusion they were actually trans....
Would a trick cyclist who gave that as opinion be a bigot?
Wildlife is really important for tourism there, and alien predators can do huge damage.
Since when did stoats become aliens?
On the islands. Hence the impact on naive populations.
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
There was also an (I believe) English cleric who introduced seven hedgehogs onto South Uist in the 70's - with consequent devastation on numbers of ground-nesting waders.
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Upsets everyone, sooner or later.
"Conversion therapy" should be banned , not only on the moral grounds of its outright offensiveness, but because it has zero basis in science. It is therefore quack science and should be banned on that basis if no other.
The problem comes when everything except aggressive “gender affirming care”, becomes labelled pejoratively as “conversion therapy” - when much of the time, it’s simply the medical practice of psycology and psychiatry.
Again, that can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. I realise that PB has a hobbyhorse when it comes to trans, but the bill's omission means that gay people are unprotected.
Wildlife is really important for tourism there, and alien predators can do huge damage.
Since when did stoats become aliens?
On the islands. Hence the impact on naive populations.
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
There was also an (I believe) English cleric who introduced seven hedgehogs onto South Uist in the 70's - with consequent devastation on numbers of ground-nesting waders.
In North Australia they released cane toads to try to control pests affecting crops. It has not worked out well.
In all seriousness, not there. Introduction of predators into island populations is a major problem everywhere as it is so disruptive to the ecosystem with all sorts of knock on effects. Stoats in mainland UK are Ok, in Orkney etc not OK because the local wildlife is not used to them, nests in the "wrong" places, etc.
Ah right, so the stoat is introduced and not indigenous. A similar problem as they have in England with several species which are, basically, driving the indigenous species to existence. Crayfish being one that leaps to mind.
Just so, with crayfish species both native and alien.
My favourite though remaisn the zebra mussel. Introduced in the C19, still blocks water supplies and drains ...
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Upsets everyone, sooner or later.
"Conversion therapy" should be banned , not only on the moral grounds of its outright offensiveness, but because it has zero basis in science. It is therefore quack science and should be banned on that basis if no other.
The problem comes when everything except aggressive “gender affirming care”, becomes labelled pejoratively as “conversion therapy” - when much of the time, it’s simply the medical practice of psycology and psychiatry.
Again, that can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. I realise that PB has a hobbyhorse when it comes to trans, but the bill's omission means that gay people are unprotected.
That was proposed which saw a backlash though.
I don't know a good solution but @Nigel_Foremain was on the right track by saying that therapy should be based on science rather than fanatics calling themselves "therapists" which is the problem.
How can you address that through the law though? I honestly don't know.
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
That can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. A bill on sexual orientation would have gone thru both houses. As I have commented before, politics is about priorities. To Sunak, bans on nonexistent meat bans and smoking have a higher priority than a ban on gay conversion therapy. And there y'go.
Except. Replace trans with gay in the example above and it isn't so easy.
Except Replace gay with trans in your example. Is it still not so easy?
I repeat. This problem could have been easily been solved by omitting gender identity. Nothing was stopping Sunak from doing that. But yet again PB contents itself with finding somebody to blame instead of actually fixing the problem.
Wildlife is really important for tourism there, and alien predators can do huge damage.
Since when did stoats become aliens?
On the islands. Hence the impact on naive populations.
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
There was also an (I believe) English cleric who introduced seven hedgehogs onto South Uist in the 70's - with consequent devastation on numbers of ground-nesting waders.
In North Australia they released cane toads to try to control pests affecting crops. It has not worked out well.
AIUI, the Hebridean hedgehogs were likewise released to control the slugs in the chap's garden.
Wildlife is really important for tourism there, and alien predators can do huge damage.
Since when did stoats become aliens?
On the islands. Hence the impact on naive populations.
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
There was also an (I believe) English cleric who introduced seven hedgehogs onto South Uist in the 70's - with consequent devastation on numbers of ground-nesting waders.
Need to release some badgers, obviously.
(Is there anything that eats Chris Packham?)
I wish there was something that would take the pompous self-opinionated untalented twat off the air
Comments
After all it was her speech that precipitated this weeks screeching U turn by Sunak. If she gets a better reception at Conference than Sunak, the game is up for him.
"Ajax game suspended again due to fireworks on the pitch… 2nd time the ref has taken the players down the tunnel.
This game is at serious risk of being abandoned."
https://x.com/A_Zonn/status/1705947626707824899?s=20
The once-fringe movement is now seeing an influx in cash after the Covid pandemic.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/24/anti-vaxxers-political-power-00116527
Utter nutters, but no longer insignificant.
However she had already u-turned and appointed Hunt before she resigned. What has Sunak meaningfully changed economically for the better that she hadn't already reversed on?
I'm reminded of a story someone I knew who worked for a multinational used to love saying. Early in his career he realised he'd made a terrible mistake and he approached his boss and explained the mistake, which would cost the firm a million dollars, and offered his resignation. The boss said "why would I want you to resign, I've just spent a million dollars training you."
Truss started off with a catastrophic misjudgement but she had the right ambition and was open to course correction. Sunak is just useless and doesn't even have an aspirational ambition.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/david-brooks-apologizes-tweet-00117794
...Brooks’ post on X — formerly known as Twitter — which read, “This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport. This is why Americans think the economy is terrible,” was accompanied by a picture of the meal that included a burger, fries and an alcoholic beverage.
The post garnered over 37 million views and generated a flurry of criticism and memes, with many users mocking him for being out of touch and noting that Brooks’ drink was a likely driver of his high tab.
The restaurant responded in a Facebook post, noting that Brooks’ bar tab accounted for almost 80 percent of his bill...
You can foolsome of the people etc.
It must be Brexit's fault somehow.
The restaurant called him on it, and now he’s backtracking.
Yet we still wonder why journalists are down there with politicians, in opinion polls of public trust?
Been a good game. The second goal by Nunez was an absolute beauty.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-12507947/State-pension-triple-lock-boost-drag-650-000-retirees-income-tax-net.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/24/britain-political-debate-policies-lib-dems-ed-davey-conference
What do others think ?
A Twitter post by the home secretary about the deaths of 39 Vietnamese migrants led to the trial of alleged people-smugglers being halted.
The migrants were found dead in a lorry trailer in Essex on 23 October 2019.
On the anniversary, Priti Patel tweeted they died "at the hands of ruthless criminals" and jurors were warned to ignore comments from politicians.
The Home Office said the tweet was quickly deleted and "not intended to reference" those involved in the trial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-55403058
"...In retrospect the Sunak victory was inevitable. Pollsters, still using the polling weights from the 2019 election, did not change them to take account of the "flight to safety" initiated by Covid. That, combined with a higher-than-expected turnout by the elderly frightened - "Querulous Man" as such voters were unkindly dubbed - resulted in a single-digit lead and a small tho' workable majority.
It had happened before. In 1970 an electorate frightened by an immigration wave and excused by Enoch Powell turned out and gave Edward Heath a surprise majority in that decade's most notable upset. A similar scenario played out in October 2024..."
[This is theoretically possible. All polling is based on assumptions and those assumptions are broadly based on the last election. If something dramatic happens such as Covid that causes people's behavior to change, this will not be picked up by the polls. Pollsters have trouble with setting the weights and from memory got them wrong in 2015 and 2017.]
39 migrants dying in the back of a lorry is a tragedy and they have died at the hands of ruthless criminals. Who those ruthless criminals are is a different matter, its entirely possible the people accused at trial aren't the ruthless criminals concerned.
Perun 20230924, "Combat Drones & Future Air Warfare - Autonomy, Teaming & Next-generation Drone Wingmen", 24/09/2023, YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0L5Wv86fQ
How about:
2024.
Tories lose election. Sunak resigns as leader and is replaced.
2026.
Tories failing to make impression in polls. Starmer seems good bet for second term. Tory unrest.
Boris publishes memoirs. Sensational success. Completes international book tour with a triumphant reception in Kiev. Special edition signed by BJ and VZ raises millions for Ukrainian war orphans.
Polling puts a Boris-led Tory Party streets ahead of Labour.
2027.
By-election. Immediate speculation. Will Boris stand? He does. To questioning about his record and various turpitudes, he replies: "Let the voters decide." Wins seat with huge swing.
2028
VONC in LOTO. Leadership election. Boris wins.
2029.
General Election. Boris easily out-campaigns Sir Keir.
Not likely,but who knows?
But the problem for the Lib Dems is that their support is concentrated amount older, more prosperous voters in the South who are notoriously nimbyish and inheritance-hogging, and possibly anti-immigration too (since they are older).
The article fails to address that paradox.
Having said all of that, I think the Lib Dems should actively promote a return to the single market, either via EFTA or a Swiss-style arrangement, and the current high levels of migration give them enough of a fig leaf to stand down criticisms on that front.
I think an anti-monopoly push is also bang-on.
“Monopolies” have even fewer friends than oil companies, non-doms, and buy-to-rent landlords.
Well funded nutcases.
It was taking several hours to get through to HMRC lines last year. I doubt they will get any additional staff to deal with their new "customers".
I'm in the market for a 2/3 tier (probably not an electric gadget) veg / dumpling steamer - can anyone recommend?
My normal goto is the local Procook shop, but their versions currently start at £79 and I think they have stopped the "free (quite nice) kitchen knife with orders over £50" sweetener.
Can anyone comment on whether Bamboo Steamers are worth the pfaff? The Procook one of these is £19.
Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson's risky "Stop Brexit" campaign was a total failure that led to Next Prime Minister Jo Swinson losing her own seat.
Two weeks after we first reported it, the Times has also heard that the ban on conversion therapy is being dropped.
None of my sources in or outside govt now expect the promise to be delivered, which will be seen by many LGBT people as a real betrayal.
https://x.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1705959480494608454?s=20
For veg I bought a Meyer set 20 years ago, still going strong. This might be what you need
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anolon-77447-Classic-Stainless-Universal/dp/B00FMVHCOY
Assuming you already have a pan
£16m to protect some fe**ing seabirds. Jeez.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
We have had elderly people in at Citizens Advice whose only income is the State Pension but because their SRP includes the earnings related part (SERPS) which takes them over the ICT personal allowance, they get a tax demand from HMRC which they often have no idea what to do with, having never seen one before.
Going to happen more and more with triple lock and frozen ICT personal allowances.
It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/matt-cartoons-september-2023/
Edit: not native to the Orkneys anyway.
(For avoidance of doubt, that someone isn't Truss.)
There is no legal definition of therapy or therapist.
A lot of nice, middle class people currently earning lucrative hourly rates may have to get some actual qualifications and professional supervision if there were legislation.
Replace trans with gay in the example above and it isn't so easy.
(Is there anything that eats Chris Packham?)
https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-wildlife/uist-wader-research
PS This is very revealing - over 50 hedgehogs per sq km of machair, killing a significant proportion of chicks, and yet not particularly dependent on them - so no way will they become extinct themselves when the birds leave.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320799001354
Some of the best posts on here get zero or, at best, one or two likes, whereas some really rather poor ones get lots - the driving fact is that they capture the emotional zeitgeist of those logged on and regularly active on here, which is partial and social - not rational.
I could see a scenario where an unexpected economic upturn combined with some major missteps by Labour with big arguments with the Corbynite left resurfacing, causing the electorate to start to question Labour's real ability to govern, and by a sudden surprise, "shy Tories" decide to vote after all. Scotland remains with the Scottish Nasty Party, and the huge electoral swing required by Labour is too much of a mountain to climb. Sunak clings to power with a majority of one.
That is my scenario. Not likely but possible, and significantly less unpleasant than nuclear war.
Would a trick cyclist who gave that as opinion be a bigot?
??
My favourite though remaisn the zebra mussel. Introduced in the C19, still blocks water supplies and drains ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-24025914
I don't know a good solution but @Nigel_Foremain was on the right track by saying that therapy should be based on science rather than fanatics calling themselves "therapists" which is the problem.
How can you address that through the law though? I honestly don't know.
Replace gay with trans in your example. Is it still not so easy?
I repeat. This problem could have been easily been solved by omitting gender identity. Nothing was stopping Sunak from doing that. But yet again PB contents itself with finding somebody to blame instead of actually fixing the problem.
“Show me a campaign in the world that has turned around the kind of opinion poll deficit we have,” said a close aide. “There isn’t one.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eb444942-5a3b-11ee-9c2e-1c7fe7ce2a43