Howdy, Stranger!

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

This government really does look after oppressed minorities – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,163
edited October 2023 in General
This government really does look after oppressed minorities – politicalbetting.com

It’s Rishi Sunak’s 1st birthday as PM.How does he choose to celebrate? By pushing ahead with Liz Truss’ plan to axe the cap on bankers’ bonuses. The cost of living and mortgages are at the front of people’s minds. Yet he thinks this is a priority? https://t.co/y4UrwvMNOo

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • We've just read in the last thread how Rishi messed up his spreadsheet and thought Con held Tamworth. Maybe his dodgy spreadsheet identified bankers as the key voting demographic to win back.
  • How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
    Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)

    The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.

    It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585

    How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
    Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)

    The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.

    It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.

    VAT on food and kids’ clothes? Possibly the most regressive tax ever, after the TV licence.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,728

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    You know TSE, your abandonment of subtlety seems to have had the opposite effect. Your last paragraph was almost subtle in places.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    The Trump verdict on his new Speaker.
    https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1717326034066972682
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?

    wibble
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?
    Yes
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Heathener said:


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?
    Yes
    Prepare to be disappointed
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
    It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.

    This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084

    Heathener said:


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?
    Yes
    Prepare to be disappointed
    No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.

    On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Heathener said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
    It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.

    This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
    True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?

    wibble
    For the purposes of the next election, that's rather irrelevant.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    Heathener said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
    It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.

    This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
    True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.
    The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.

    Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.

    Why? FPTP.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?
    Yes
    Prepare to be disappointed
    No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.

    On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.
    Lol he'll kick the can down the road. independent enquiry etc.

    But I cant see a Londoncentric professional wishing to upset the apple cart, he needs the banks on board and will quietly let the issue drop.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    TimS said:

    Heathener said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
    It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.

    This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
    True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.
    The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.

    Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.

    Why? FPTP.
    No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.

    Where's Respect these days ?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    Nigelb said:


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?

    wibble
    For the purposes of the next election, that's rather irrelevant.
    Really ? Given nobody has published a manifesto yet Id still say the subject is up for discussion. So if Starmer wants to go to town on this he can make it a policy.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    TimS said:

    Heathener said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
    It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.

    This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
    True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.
    The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.

    Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.

    Why? FPTP.
    No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.

    Where's Respect these days ?
    What’s this variety of parties? Conservative and Refuk. Plus a bunch of fascist-adjacent micro-parties. Who else?

    The left have Labour and the Greens. And a bunch of fruitcake marginalia. It’s precisely symmetrical except in Scotland and Wales where they also have the SNP and Plaid.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    Nigelb said:


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?

    wibble
    For the purposes of the next election, that's rather irrelevant.
    Really ? Given nobody has published a manifesto yet Id still say the subject is up for discussion. So if Starmer wants to go to town on this he can make it a policy.
    It’ll be a Reeves decision. Ex-city so whatever she decides she’ll be able to put some sort of macro econ gloss on it.

    I’m inclined to agree with you they’ll quietly let the issue drop.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,405
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Heathener said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
    It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.

    This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
    True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.
    The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.

    Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.

    Why? FPTP.
    No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.

    Where's Respect these days ?
    What’s this variety of parties? Conservative and Refuk. Plus a bunch of fascist-adjacent micro-parties. Who else?

    The left have Labour and the Greens. And a bunch of fruitcake marginalia. It’s precisely symmetrical except in Scotland and Wales where they also have the SNP and Plaid.
    Yes. Ill give you the Greens I had been focusing more on the Labour Left. It will be interesting to see if they draw off support in the current Gaza uproar.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,457
    It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397

    It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.

    You mean, like it did in 2007-8?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.

    I think any impact would be marginal but it probably does help to allow for more variable cost base. Banks don’t make super profits anymore anyway. That’s the PE and hedge funds industry, where payment is uncapped because it’s treated as capital gains.

    But it’s politically toxic for Sunak to abolish the cap. Whereas Reeves deciding not to reintroduce it wouldn’t be so problematic.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995
    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,039

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?
    Yes
    Prepare to be disappointed
    No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.

    On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.
    Lol he'll kick the can down the road. independent enquiry etc.

    But I cant see a Londoncentric professional wishing to upset the apple cart, he needs the banks on board and will quietly let the issue drop.
    Possibly. On the other hand, like all lawyers, Starmer's totally spineless, completely ignorant of economics and utterly without principle. He can't see a bandwagon without trying to jump on it, and is addicted to public sector managerial solutions, so I can see him trying to get the cap back in.

    That government is just as incompetent in telling people what they should earn as it is in everything else when they interfere in the market isn't something he can grasp. Nor, in fairness, do 63% of the country, apparently.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662

    How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
    Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)

    The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.

    It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.

    Is VAT on meat part of the plan?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,405
    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Or people who stay up late !!!!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Striking stat:

    Covid-19 meant that death rates in 2020 were much higher than recent years. In England & Wales they increased by 13% compared to 2019.

    But even in 2020, death rates for England & Wales were lower than they have EVER been in Scotland!




    https://x.com/actuarybyday/status/1716805711903207528?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749
    To be fair, Sunak won't be in a position to help "his" people for very much longer, so it's understandable that he should want to get on with it.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    Foxy said:

    How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
    Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)

    The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.

    It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.

    Is VAT on meat part of the plan?
    ... or a Bin Tax....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    edited October 2023
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:


    Heathener said:

    Staggering decision by Sunak.

    Voters will have their vengeance.

    They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?
    Yes
    Prepare to be disappointed
    No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.

    On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.
    Labour right now is simply looking for sticks with which to beat the Tories. That the Tories are offering them up voluntarily just makes their task easier.

    What they actually do about any of this when they come to power, is another matter entirely. If there’s no political or financial upside for the government at the time, my money is on nothing.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,091

    How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
    Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handout

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
    ...

    The present government doles out state handouts for nearly everything, including buses, electricity bills, transport to work, replacing your boiler, etc. However it funds it by debt rather than taxation.

    At the risk of being contrarian, maybe a Labour govt willing to tax-and-spend would legitimately be better. It would certainly be better than debt-and-spend.

  • Leon said:

    I can’t believe at least 37% of Britons are unable to identify black British heroes like Quintus Lollius Urbicus from the 3rd Century AD

    Do we even have an education system??

    I can't believe Roman Britain stopped at Hadrian's Wall.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Did you get the Sicilian travel advice you were asking for last night?

    Inland is good, except the bits strewn with miles of uncollected roadside rubbish. The Roman villa of Casale was my favourite, and the Etna vineyards.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Did you get the Sicilian travel advice you were asking for last night?

    Inland is good, except the bits strewn with miles of uncollected roadside rubbish. The Roman villa of Casale was my favourite, and the Etna vineyards.
    No I missed that. Grazie!

    It does seem like the slopes of Etna are worth a look
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749
    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.

    The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    viewcode said:

    How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
    Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handout

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
    ...

    The present government doles out state handouts for nearly everything, including buses, electricity bills, transport to work, replacing your boiler, etc. However it funds it by debt rather than taxation.

    At the risk of being contrarian, maybe a Labour govt willing to tax-and-spend would legitimately be better. It would certainly be better than debt-and-spend.

    Which is of course why New Labour found the then recently invented Tory PFI so insanely attractive. Never mind that the sudden rush of new funding is often spent unwisely or carelessly; the burden of paying it back is safely shunted off into the distant future.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995
    edited October 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.
    Never too early for an Ydoethur pun. I’m glad you didn’t say you’re in Cambodia getting ready for a minor tour.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    TimS said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.
    Never to early for an Ydoethur pun. I’m glad you didn’t say you’re in Cambodia getting ready for a minor tour.
    Well, I'm certainly glad you cottoned on to where I am.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.

    If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
  • OT for PBers with shiny new PCs on their Christmas list after their laptops mysteriously slowed down

    Windows 11 Pro's On-By-Default Encryption Slows SSDs Up to 45%
    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-software-bitlocker-slows-performance
    hat-tip TechLinked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-x2rTNukao
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    edited October 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.
    What’s the weather been like? I am thinking of taking the dog to Crete in October 2026. Or maybe 2025. ;)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662

    Leon said:

    I can’t believe at least 37% of Britons are unable to identify black British heroes like Quintus Lollius Urbicus from the 3rd Century AD

    Do we even have an education system??

    I can't believe Roman Britain stopped at Hadrian's Wall.
    It got as far as the Antonine wall for a bit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Wall
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132
    This is actually a positive from the government - they're (at least until they U-turn pathetically) doing something good for the country as a whole, rather than just announcing nonsense that will never happen, or chasing after whatever the latest headline or focus group says.

    Given that they still have a large majority, and no hope of remaining in power beyond a year it would be nice to think they could do more of this sort of thing, but I'm sure normal service will be resumed soon.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,360
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.
    I went there at the start of the month. Crete is beautiful.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,728

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Heathener said:

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    carnforth said:

    nico679 said:

    Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.

    I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.
    He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.
    You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".
    FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.
    It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.

    This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
    True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.
    The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.

    Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.

    Why? FPTP.
    No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.

    Where's Respect these days ?
    What’s this variety of parties? Conservative and Refuk. Plus a bunch of fascist-adjacent micro-parties. Who else?

    The left have Labour and the Greens. And a bunch of fruitcake marginalia. It’s precisely symmetrical except in Scotland and Wales where they also have the SNP and Plaid.
    Yes. Ill give you the Greens I had been focusing more on the Labour Left. It will be interesting to see if they draw off support in the current Gaza uproar.
    Obviously these voters have places to go - the Greens or Gallowayesque mobs. And you can see a little local difficulty. But I tend to think the number of people prepared to quit and/or start-up Labour's civil war again over its stance on something it can do nothing about - and where Starmer's stance is identical to Bernie Sanders (!), will be limited to the rump who have never forgiven Starmer for defenestrating Corbyn over antisemitism, and a small number for whom unequivocal, uncaveated support for Palestine is a primary animating issue - neither of whom can set the policy of a party which has to act for the country.

    Another point is the polls. If Starmer were struggling or neck and neck and with a less-than-great chance of winning the next election, then it genuinely might be worth a disgruntled big-name frontbencher's while to resign to win the support of the left in a likely leadership election. I take it back if I'm wrong, but there's no cosplay Cook figure (who did so for honourable reasons) - nor is this Iraq. Even if he loses a junior minister or two - those rarely make much of a dent in the grand scheme of things.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?
    Does Kwarteng still count? Britain's shortest period as Chancellor?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    A new book by Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has been found to contain examples of apparent plagiarism, including entire sentences and paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgment.

    The book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, included reproduced material from online blogs, Wikipedia, The Guardian and a report foreword by Labour MP Hilary Benn without acknowledging the sources.

    https://www.ft.com/content/e4c190b0-cc4e-4dc4-945b-9f680ce1c67f
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,900
    edited October 2023
    scooped by Nigelb
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    He's lucky to be up against Starmer. Anyone looking at the oft repeated 'Go Bomb 'em Israel-and when you've finished bomb 'em some more' (or words to that effect) and then watching him answer the follow-up 'Did you really mean what you wanted Israel to wipe Gaza off the map' (or words to that effect)?

    'No no no...I never said that'.

    'But we have it on film'

    'No no no.....you don't'

    I'm sorry Heathener. Starmer is very capable of screwing this up. He's everything his enemies accuse him of being. He's more William Hague than Tony Blair. He might ride this one out but there's only so long he can keep looking like a Sunak mini -me before voters start wondering whether they're better with the real thing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,360
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
    In overall terms, gerrymandering, while disgraceful, doesn’t really favour either party.

    The House election result, 222 to 213, almost exactly matches the national vote share won by Republicans and Democrats.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    edited October 2023
    Duplicate deleted
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.

    If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't

    I am very glad to see the government realise the importance of pay in retention of skilled personnel.

    I am sure that a similar approach to the renewed talks with the BMA will be welcomed by the Tory faithful.
    That is funded by higher taxes, not the private sector as bankers bonuses now are (except for private doctors salaries)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,360

    A new book by Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has been found to contain examples of apparent plagiarism, including entire sentences and paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgment.

    The book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, included reproduced material from online blogs, Wikipedia, The Guardian and a report foreword by Labour MP Hilary Benn without acknowledging the sources.

    https://www.ft.com/content/e4c190b0-cc4e-4dc4-945b-9f680ce1c67f

    Just another lazy politician getting stuff ghost-written.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
    In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rolls
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?
    Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.

    They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.

    If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't

    I am very glad to see the government realise the importance of pay in retention of skilled personnel.

    I am sure that a similar approach to the renewed talks with the BMA will be welcomed by the Tory faithful.
    That is funded by higher taxes, not the private sector as bankers bonuses now are (except for private doctors salaries)
    Same issue of staff retention...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749
    Roger said:

    He's lucky to be up against Starmer. Anyone looking at the oft repeated 'Go Bomb 'em Israel-and when you've finished bomb 'em some more' (or words to that effect) and then watching him answer the follow-up 'Did you really mean what you wanted Israel to wipe Gaza off the map' (or words to that effect)?

    'No no no...I never said that'.

    'But we have it on film'

    'No no no.....you don't'

    I'm sorry Heathener. Starmer is very capable of screwing this up. He's everything his enemies accuse him of being. He's more William Hague than Tony Blair. He might ride this one out but there's only so long he can keep looking like a Sunak mini -me before voters start wondering whether they're better with the real thing.

    The concept of a Sunak mini-me is mind-boggling!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?
    Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.

    They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway.
    I was glad to see my old teacher Dr Aggrey Burke in the list of 100 great Black Britons. He was probably the most influential of all my clinical teachers, who really opened my eyes to understand the world.

    https://www.100greatblackbritons.co.uk/
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,091

    A new book by Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has been found to contain examples of apparent plagiarism, including entire sentences and paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgment.

    The book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, included reproduced material from online blogs, Wikipedia, The Guardian and a report foreword by Labour MP Hilary Benn without acknowledging the sources.

    https://www.ft.com/content/e4c190b0-cc4e-4dc4-945b-9f680ce1c67f

    If we deleted all those PBers whose contributions consisted solely/mostly quoting from other sources it would be considerably smaller...😀
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,405
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?
    Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.

    They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway.
    Lenny for me, doing Frank Spencer (badly) on New Faces and the soccer player Cyrille Regis RIP
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.
    Never to early for an Ydoethur pun. I’m glad you didn’t say you’re in Cambodia getting ready for a minor tour.
    Well, I'm certainly glad you cottoned on to where I am.
    Full of bullshit as usual.,.
  • HYUFD said:

    If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.

    If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't

    As you always respond to any event like this I have to assume that it is sincere as opposed to just plain mad / ignorant.

    You lot are 20% behind in the polls. You can't have policies that appeal to the remaining Tory voters and repel any other voter. You need policies which will appeal to people saying they won't vote for you.

    Despite the holier-than-thou bluster you are intelligent, so much know this. So is there another angle? A desperate need to shore up the remaiing Tory vote because otherwise it goes elsewhere?

    Is the thinking that unless you appall 75% of the electorate with this bonus thing, you might lose another 5% of your remaining chunk to ReFUK? Because otherwise why would you do it? And don't say "for the good of he country" as your only definition of what is good for the country is you lot in government. And this helps remove you from government. So why?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.

    The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
    I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.
    I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.

    The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
    Regardless of what exactly the author said, this does look like being a pretty effective marketing ploy on behalf of Bloomsbury for the book they have just published. The Guardian report does say Bloomsbury commissioned the survey, but really perhaps they should have put "Advertising Feature" at the top of the article.

  • Israeli tanks and troops cross into Gaza as part of 'tactical raid'
    Israel's Army Radio reports that ground forces carried out a "relatively large" operation aimed at attacking Hamas positions in Gaza.

    https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-latest-israel-sends-tanks-into-gaza-as-troops-complete-ground-incursion-12978800
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited October 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.

    Objection, your Honour

    Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
    Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.
    Knossos is a very interesting site, but perhaps the reconstructions aren't entirely helpful. The museum in Heraklion has a splendid collection of finds from the excavations.
  • Off-duty British-Israeli soldier flung back seven Hamas grenades before eighth blew up in his hand
    https://news.sky.com/story/off-duty-british-israeli-soldier-flung-back-seven-hamas-grenades-before-eighth-blew-up-in-his-hand-12992802

    This is First World War stuff. Posthumous GC incoming?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370

    HYUFD said:

    If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.

    If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't

    As you always respond to any event like this I have to assume that it is sincere as opposed to just plain mad / ignorant.

    You lot are 20% behind in the polls. You can't have policies that appeal to the remaining Tory voters and repel any other voter. You need policies which will appeal to people saying they won't vote for you.

    Despite the holier-than-thou bluster you are intelligent, so much know this. So is there another angle? A desperate need to shore up the remaiing Tory vote because otherwise it goes elsewhere?

    Is the thinking that unless you appall 75% of the electorate with this bonus thing, you might lose another 5% of your remaining chunk to ReFUK? Because otherwise why would you do it? And don't say "for the good of he country" as your only definition of what is good for the country is you lot in government. And this helps remove you from government. So why?
    I don't see how it appeals to all Tory voters - a lot of them will seriously dislike the games bankers have played in the past to maximise their bonuses (while risking the bank as a whole)..
  • eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.

    If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't

    As you always respond to any event like this I have to assume that it is sincere as opposed to just plain mad / ignorant.

    You lot are 20% behind in the polls. You can't have policies that appeal to the remaining Tory voters and repel any other voter. You need policies which will appeal to people saying they won't vote for you.

    Despite the holier-than-thou bluster you are intelligent, so much know this. So is there another angle? A desperate need to shore up the remaiing Tory vote because otherwise it goes elsewhere?

    Is the thinking that unless you appall 75% of the electorate with this bonus thing, you might lose another 5% of your remaining chunk to ReFUK? Because otherwise why would you do it? And don't say "for the good of he country" as your only definition of what is good for the country is you lot in government. And this helps remove you from government. So why?
    I don't see how it appeals to all Tory voters - a lot of them will seriously dislike the games bankers have played in the past to maximise their bonuses (while risking the bank as a whole)..
    It appeals to Tory donors, and friends of Tory MPs and media tycoons.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    .
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
    In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rolls
    So your answer is basically no, you can't give such examples, and resort to your usual tactic in such casesof answering a different question that you've asked yourself.

    Out of the ten most gerrymandered states, only one is Democratic.
  • DavidL said:

    The city of London is one of our key industries and one of the few that is internationally competitive. The restriction on bonuses is a silly idea introduced by the EU at the insistence of those who don’t have such an industry. The really surprising thing is that the government has taken so little to abolish a measure that they always opposed.

    Of course it won’t win any votes but if it enhances London as a place for financial services it will help improve our tax base.

    We will get a little bit of extra tax each year sure. But lets not pretend it doesn't also increase our potential liabilities in a future bank bailout too.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.

    The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
    I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.
    I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.
    Obviously it's difficult to estimate accurately what the black population was historically. I suspect that for London the answer is more than one might think but less than portrayed in Doctor Who. English Heritage quotes an estimate of 10,000 in London around 1800, which would be about 1% of the population. Though Wikipedia also quotes a contemporary estimate of as many as 20,000 in 1764, which would be more like 2.5%.

  • Well if millions of homes existed in Greenock people could move from Edinburgh to Greenock.

    They could, if they've never been to Greenock before and don't know what they're getting into...

    But seriously, Greenock the surrounding area is a good illustration of one side of the housing shortage. It does not have a housing shortage, it has a people shortage. Nobody wants to move there. The local authority, Inverclyde council, has a 'depopulation strategy' which is, not surprisingly given the lack of resources, an largely ineffective attempt to get people to stop fleeing for greener pastures.

    Large swathes of high and medium-density housing in Inverclyde, tower blocks, tenements and the like, have been demolished in recent years because they are lying empty and the housing stock has fallen into disrepair.

    Nobody is moving from Edinburgh to Greenock unless they are utterly without options. There are few high quality jobs in the area. The infrastructure is crap. The amenities are sparse and getting more so. It's an area in desperate need of help. The UK government is spending £20m to tart up the town centre, but that's like putting lipstick on someone who's dying.



    This is the Clune Park estate in Port Glasgow, a couple of miles up the road from Greenock. Inverclyde council is having to spend millions buying the place and knocking it down because it was such a hole most of the residents got the hell out and it's become a magnet for drug dealers and arsonists.

    And the bitter part? Clune Park is little more than a stone's throw from Ferguson's shipyard where the SNP has been busy pouring hundreds of millions into a black hole. That money wouldn't have fixed Inverclyde's problems, but a fraction of it spent wisely might have made Clune Park a decent place to live.

    We need to be doing something about places like this before concreting over the countryside to build a zillion new homes in desirable areas.


    Why would it be either/or?

    We have a shortage of millions of homes. All the Greenock's in the country are already included in that data and don't make up the shortage.

    Making places like Greenock desirable absolutely can and should be possible, but its not either/or, there still needs to be millions of homes built to cope with the population growth we've already had (and the population growth which is yet to come).
  • .
    Nigelb said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
    In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rolls
    So your answer is basically no, you can't give such examples, and resort to your usual tactic in such casesof answering a different question that you've asked yourself.

    Out of the ten most gerrymandered states, only one is Democratic.
    To be fair to HY, its rather difficult to argue that the US is a functioning democracy anyway.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
    In overall terms, gerrymandering, while disgraceful, doesn’t really favour either party.

    The House election result, 222 to 213, almost exactly matches the national vote share won by Republicans and Democrats.
    That is unusual, though - and thanks to the Supreme Court reducing protections against gerrymandering, and moves such as North Carolina's, it is likely to revert to the more regular pattern.
    Here are the last half dozen percentages of national vote and corresponding percentages of seats in the House of Representatives for the GOP.

    2022 50.6% 51%
    2020 47.2% 48.9%
    2018 44.8% 45.7%
    2016 49.1% 55.4%
    2014 51.2% 56.8%
    2012 47.7% 53.7%
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    We've just read in the last thread how Rishi messed up his spreadsheet and thought Con held Tamworth. Maybe his dodgy spreadsheet identified bankers as the key voting demographic to win back.

    They’re a key *donor* demographic to win back. I suspect the once-groaning Tory campaign war chest is looking a little humbler these days.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    Ghedebrav said:

    We've just read in the last thread how Rishi messed up his spreadsheet and thought Con held Tamworth. Maybe his dodgy spreadsheet identified bankers as the key voting demographic to win back.

    They’re a key *donor* demographic to win back. I suspect the once-groaning Tory campaign war chest is looking a little humbler these days.
    Banker heavy Kensington, Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham and Esher and Walton are also now marginal seats
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,431
    Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
    In overall terms, gerrymandering, while disgraceful, doesn’t really favour either party.

    The House election result, 222 to 213, almost exactly matches the national vote share won by Republicans and Democrats.
    That is unusual, though - and thanks to the Supreme Court reducing protections against gerrymandering, and moves such as North Carolina's, it is likely to revert to the more regular pattern.
    Here are the last half dozen percentages of national vote and corresponding percentages of seats in the House of Representatives for the GOP.

    2022 50.6% 51%
    2020 47.2% 48.9%
    2018 44.8% 45.7%
    2016 49.1% 55.4%
    2014 51.2% 56.8%
    2012 47.7% 53.7%
    Actually, that’s doing better than us. Although I’m not digging out the figures ATM.

    And Good Morning to everybody. Gloomy and drizzly, though!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727
    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?
    Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.

    They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway.
    Lenny for me, doing Frank Spencer (badly) on New Faces and the soccer player Cyrille Regis RIP
    If we're going historical then Mary Seacole and all those aristocrats off Bridgerton :wink:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    edited October 2023

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.

    The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
    I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.
    I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.
    Around half a percent of London's population in 1900 was recorded as being from the colonies. Though they would have been heavily concentrated in dockland areas.

    As noted above, it's much more difficult to estimate the numbers who had been there for several generations.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103

    It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.

    Few like bankers getting money of course, even if it was earned, but they don't help themselves by seemingly seeing a 'bonus' as something they are required or entitled to have and moaning so loudly about it all the time. Other areas who demand bonuses are given short shrift, yet the financial industry is the only one where it helps everyone?
  • Chris said:

    Leon said:

    The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote


    “She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
    an abolitionist and writer”

    Genius

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds

    Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.

    The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
    I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.
    I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.
    If one's trying to portray reality then yes its odd.

    However if one's trying to portray a parallel universe version of Victorian London, like Bridgerton, there's absolutely nothing odd with it at all.

    We already know its fiction, not reality. If its fiction, anything can be different.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    Nigelb said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
    ...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
    The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.

    The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...

    Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often do
    Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.

    Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
    In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rolls
    So your answer is basically no, you can't give such examples, and resort to your usual tactic in such casesof answering a different question that you've asked yourself.

    Out of the ten most gerrymandered states, only one is Democratic.
    So even you admit one of the ten is Democrat, if the US makes gerrymandering legal and constitutional as it does the Democrats can't complain if the Republicans are now better at it than them.

    In the 1950s and 1960s however the Democrats successfully gerrymandered lots of seats, especially in the South. Politics is a ruthless business, if you don't like it don't whinge, get even!
This discussion has been closed.