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.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
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.
Illinois is hugely gerrymandered, at present, and New York would have been, had the State’s Supreme Court not struck down the intended boundaries.
Which does not excuse North Carolina. Since the Republicans “won” the State Supreme Court, its judges will uphold the gerrymander.
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.
You'd think when ignoring a point to ask oneself a different, presumably easier, question, it'd at least be a more convincing or relevant one.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
If she were alive today she certainly wouldn't be a hero to such authors and would suffer horrendous online abuse.
I feel that this is the right thing to do (for reasons already discussed) and won't hurt the Tories, because they're already at rock bottom.
Yes its unpopular, but Governments can take unpopular decisions for the right reason and still be re-elected if they're overall popular (see Iraq and Labour, 2005).
The reason the Tories won't be re-elected next time is because people are hurting in their own family circumstances, struggling to pay either rent or a mortgage. Housing is the reason the Tories will lose the next election, and deserve to do so.
The number of people who would have been happy to vote for the Tories, but now won't because of this, is approximately zero.
In their remaining time in office, the Party should continue to take decisions that it thinks is right for the country, even if they're not necessarily popular. The biggest problem is that this sensible decision is completely out of character and when it comes to other areas they're going for the easy choice, rather than the right thing to do.
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”
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%.
Which probably means a lot of Britons have a black ancestor without knowing it, especially those with roots in port cities like London or Liverpool. Referring back to the original article, there is a rather lovely statue of Equiano made by schoolchildren in our local park. I could have named him, Seacole and the young aristocratic woman, Belle, they made a film about - I can't remember her surname though, probably no other pre-20C black Britons.
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.
Perhaps but there are a lot of important decisions that are routinely ducked because they're seen to be "politically toxic".
If our politicians aren't there to make the argument with the courage to lead, then what is the point of them?
In part I think a bit of this is Johnson legacy, where we’ve become used to government-by-optics; really most everything he did was opportunistic. Politically, he was an empty vessel and the key question with any policy was ‘will people like me because of it?’.
He isn’t alone in this of course, but is the most egregious offender. Personally I disagree with folk getting ginormous boni, but I think it’s fair enough for a Tory government to remove the restraints on this as a point of principle, regardless of whether or not most people agree with it.
Tl;dr governments are supposed to govern, not just campaign.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
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.
Perhaps but there are a lot of important decisions that are routinely ducked because they're seen to be "politically toxic".
If our politicians aren't there to make the argument with the courage to lead, then what is the point of them?
But is there any sign of Rishi making the argument? I can't remember if Kwarteng made the argument; he was there for such a short time and there's so much else going on. Since then, this change has just been passively allowed to happen.
And Sunak'n'Hunt have form for that. Remember the Rooker–Wise Amendment? Tax thresholds should rise with inflation? Sunak and Hunt have introduced a six year freeze on the basis of about two sentences.
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”
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%.
Which probably means a lot of Britons have a black ancestor without knowing it, especially those with roots in port cities like London or Liverpool. Referring back to the original article, there is a rather lovely statue of Equiano made by schoolchildren in our local park. I could have named him, Seacole and the young aristocratic woman, Belle, they made a film about - I can't remember her surname though, probably no other pre-20C black Britons.
Wikipedia reminded me of another 19th-century Black Briton who most people will have heard of but without knowing he was black or even a real person - the circus owner Pablo Fanque.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Or pay them less with a smaller pension so that can't afford to retire in their late fifties.
Plenty of doctors out there - playing golf and looking after their grandkids.
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
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.
Perhaps but there are a lot of important decisions that are routinely ducked because they're seen to be "politically toxic".
If our politicians aren't there to make the argument with the courage to lead, then what is the point of them?
But is there any sign of Rishi making the argument? I can't remember if Kwarteng made the argument; he was there for such a short time and there's so much else going on. Since then, this change has just been passively allowed to happen.
And Sunak'n'Hunt have form for that. Remember the Rooker–Wise Amendment? Tax thresholds should rise with inflation? Sunak and Hunt have introduced a six year freeze on the basis of about two sentences.
Neither. Rishi isn't making it (even though probably has a view as to what it is) and Kwarteng just jumped to implementation with zero preparation of the ground.
If you look at Thatcher (and not just her but Lawson/Joseph and others) they spent years in the early 80s taking their arguments around TV studios and radio shows, as well as in Parliament and the papers.
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.
That is much better dealt with by solvency ratios under the Pisa accords than reducing the link between pay and performance of individual bankers.
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”
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%.
Which probably means a lot of Britons have a black ancestor without knowing it, especially those with roots in port cities like London or Liverpool. Referring back to the original article, there is a rather lovely statue of Equiano made by schoolchildren in our local park. I could have named him, Seacole and the young aristocratic woman, Belle, they made a film about - I can't remember her surname though, probably no other pre-20C black Britons.
Wikipedia reminded me of another 19th-century Black Briton who most people will have heard of but without knowing he was black or even a real person - the circus owner Pablo Fanque.
Jack Perkins first black captain in the Royal Navy - 1800
I feel that this is the right thing to do (for reasons already discussed) and won't hurt the Tories, because they're already at rock bottom.
Yes its unpopular, but Governments can take unpopular decisions for the right reason and still be re-elected if they're overall popular (see Iraq and Labour, 2005).
The reason the Tories won't be re-elected next time is because people are hurting in their own family circumstances, struggling to pay either rent or a mortgage. Housing is the reason the Tories will lose the next election, and deserve to do so.
The number of people who would have been happy to vote for the Tories, but now won't because of this, is approximately zero.
In their remaining time in office, the Party should continue to take decisions that it thinks is right for the country, even if they're not necessarily popular. The biggest problem is that this sensible decision is completely out of character and when it comes to other areas they're going for the easy choice, rather than the right thing to do.
Right for the country? More like swigging champagne while the ship is sinking, just as long as their little clique of troughers do alright for themselves and get a seat in the executive lifeboat.
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.
That is much better dealt with by solvency ratios under the Pisa accords than reducing the link between pay and performance of individual bankers.
Of course there are other factors. But banking is historically an industry where the profits go to employees, the investors have a topsy turvy run and governments bail out the losses. There should be more controls on senior employees risk appetities than they would prefer or even than shareholders are able to enforce, or the state ends up picking up the tab when it occassionally goes very wrong.
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
There was in fact, a non-trivial number of black sailors in the 18th century navy, some of whom were commissioned officers. For its time, the navy was meritocratic, and good seamen were in demand, regardless of colour.
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
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”
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%.
Which probably means a lot of Britons have a black ancestor without knowing it, especially those with roots in port cities like London or Liverpool. Referring back to the original article, there is a rather lovely statue of Equiano made by schoolchildren in our local park. I could have named him, Seacole and the young aristocratic woman, Belle, they made a film about - I can't remember her surname though, probably no other pre-20C black Britons.
Wikipedia reminded me of another 19th-century Black Briton who most people will have heard of but without knowing he was black or even a real person - the circus owner Pablo Fanque.
Jack Perkins first black captain in the Royal Navy - 1800
I must confess I’d never heard of Mary Seacole until wards at the hospital where I was working in the 90’s changed their ward ID policy from numbers to names, and ‘Mary Seacole’ was one of the new names.
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
I'd imagine if the US had an electoral commission, it would somehow end up a key secondary battleground to which partisan people were appointed, rather like the supreme court.
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
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.
That is much better dealt with by solvency ratios under the Pisa accords than reducing the link between pay and performance of individual bankers.
Of course there are other factors. But banking is historically an industry where the profits go to employees, the investors have a topsy turvy run and governments bail out the losses. There should be more controls on senior employees risk appetities than they would prefer or even than shareholders are able to enforce, or the state ends up picking up the tab when it occassionally goes very wrong.
I wouldn’t deny this but if you are in the Casino business you want to be the biggest and the best.
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
I'm impressed that the caucus has finally found someone who The Master is prepared to accept as The Annointed One. Spoils my fun in actually having Trump do the Speaker job, but Trump is clearly happy with their choice.
Someone who is God-obsessed, openly believes the 2020 election was fraudulent and acted to overturn it, is a gay and women oppressing "Christian" climate change denying lunatic who wants to axe healthcare and social security.
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
I'm impressed that the caucus has finally found someone who The Master is prepared to accept as The Annointed One. Spoils my fun in actually having Trump do the Speaker job, but Trump is clearly happy with their choice.
Someone who is God-obsessed, openly believes the 2020 election was fraudulent and acted to overturn it, is a gay and women oppressing "Christian" climate change denying lunatic who wants to axe healthcare and social security.
All hail proto-Gilead. Blessed Day.
The slightly scary thing is that with all that many regard him as a moderate.
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”
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%.
Which probably means a lot of Britons have a black ancestor without knowing it, especially those with roots in port cities like London or Liverpool. Referring back to the original article, there is a rather lovely statue of Equiano made by schoolchildren in our local park. I could have named him, Seacole and the young aristocratic woman, Belle, they made a film about - I can't remember her surname though, probably no other pre-20C black Britons.
Wikipedia reminded me of another 19th-century Black Briton who most people will have heard of but without knowing he was black or even a real person - the circus owner Pablo Fanque.
Jack Perkins first black captain in the Royal Navy - 1800
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”
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”
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%.
Which probably means a lot of Britons have a black ancestor without knowing it, especially those with roots in port cities like London or Liverpool. Referring back to the original article, there is a rather lovely statue of Equiano made by schoolchildren in our local park. I could have named him, Seacole and the young aristocratic woman, Belle, they made a film about - I can't remember her surname though, probably no other pre-20C black Britons.
Wikipedia reminded me of another 19th-century Black Briton who most people will have heard of but without knowing he was black or even a real person - the circus owner Pablo Fanque.
Jack Perkins first black captain in the Royal Navy - 1800
I must confess I’d never heard of Mary Seacole until wards at the hospital where I was working in the 90’s changed their ward ID policy from numbers to names, and ‘Mary Seacole’ was one of the new names.
Mary Seacole was quite a celebrity to the Victorian public
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
I'm impressed that the caucus has finally found someone who The Master is prepared to accept as The Annointed One. Spoils my fun in actually having Trump do the Speaker job, but Trump is clearly happy with their choice.
Someone who is God-obsessed, openly believes the 2020 election was fraudulent and acted to overturn it, is a gay and women oppressing "Christian" climate change denying lunatic who wants to axe healthcare and social security.
All hail proto-Gilead. Blessed Day.
The slightly scary thing is that with all that many regard him as a moderate.
He is, if you compare him to Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Greene etc.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
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”
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
I'm impressed that the caucus has finally found someone who The Master is prepared to accept as The Annointed One. Spoils my fun in actually having Trump do the Speaker job, but Trump is clearly happy with their choice.
Someone who is God-obsessed, openly believes the 2020 election was fraudulent and acted to overturn it, is a gay and women oppressing "Christian" climate change denying lunatic who wants to axe healthcare and social security.
All hail proto-Gilead. Blessed Day.
The slightly scary thing is that with all that many regard him as a moderate.
He isn't as extreme as the Gaetz wing of the party only in the way that he speaks. His ideas and policies are basically the same. And if America reelects Trump and hands power over to MAGA, that will be the end of even the pretence that it is a democracy.
George W Bush was widely ridiculed as a moron - despite those people who met and worked with him pointing out that much of his folksey thing was an act. And yet he was the very last sane Republican politician. Will there be another?
Just got my passport renewed in eight days. It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Good lord, a public service actually providing a service? How novel.
Naughty. All the eg online services (MOT, passport, driving license, Vehicle Tax, etc) are pretty damn good online. Like some kind of strange efficient anomaly amidst the chaos.
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
I'm impressed that the caucus has finally found someone who The Master is prepared to accept as The Annointed One. Spoils my fun in actually having Trump do the Speaker job, but Trump is clearly happy with their choice.
Someone who is God-obsessed, openly believes the 2020 election was fraudulent and acted to overturn it, is a gay and women oppressing "Christian" climate change denying lunatic who wants to axe healthcare and social security.
All hail proto-Gilead. Blessed Day.
The slightly scary thing is that with all that many regard him as a moderate.
He is, if you compare him to Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Greene etc.
Taylor Greene got kicked out of the club for being too bipartisan......
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
But who does the work and pays the taxes in the meantime? Your plan requires at least 2 decades before you get any replacement workforce even if everyone reacts to the announcement by immediately holding a great big orgy.
Just got my passport renewed in eight days. It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Good lord, a public service actually providing a service? How novel.
Naughty. All the eg online services (MOT, passport, driving license, Vehicle Tax, etc) are pretty damn good online. Like some kind of strange efficient anomaly amidst the chaos.
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
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”
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.
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.
I'm impressed that the caucus has finally found someone who The Master is prepared to accept as The Annointed One. Spoils my fun in actually having Trump do the Speaker job, but Trump is clearly happy with their choice.
Someone who is God-obsessed, openly believes the 2020 election was fraudulent and acted to overturn it, is a gay and women oppressing "Christian" climate change denying lunatic who wants to axe healthcare and social security.
All hail proto-Gilead. Blessed Day.
The slightly scary thing is that with all that many regard him as a moderate.
He is, if you compare him to Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Greene etc.
Taylor Greene got kicked out of the club for being too bipartisan......
The funniest, I think, was Boebert and her husband poisoning several dozen people at a barbecue, and later, her getting thrown out of a Denver theatre for lewd conduct, and George Santos being a former drag queen.
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”
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.
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
There was in fact, a non-trivial number of black sailors in the 18th century navy, some of whom were commissioned officers. For its time, the navy was meritocratic, and good seamen were in demand, regardless of colour.
The modern equivalent is probably sport. The team manager or selector doesn’t care if you’re white, black, brown, yellow, or blue, he or she just wants to hire the best people or the best team.
Sports *fans* might sometimes have taken a different view, but the sports themselves are as close to a meritocracy as one finds.
Just got my passport renewed in eight days. It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Good lord, a public service actually providing a service? How novel.
Naughty. All the eg online services (MOT, passport, driving license, Vehicle Tax, etc) are pretty damn good online. Like some kind of strange efficient anomaly amidst the chaos.
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
Those - MOT, driving licence, vehicle tax all seem to skip the Government Gateway ID - or did last time I checked. The GGID is a nice idea, but due to lack of recovery options, I have about six now, I think. It's generally easier to set a new one up than recover an old one
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
There was in fact, a non-trivial number of black sailors in the 18th century navy, some of whom were commissioned officers. For its time, the navy was meritocratic, and good seamen were in demand, regardless of colour.
The modern equivalent is probably sport. The team manager or selector doesn’t care if you’re white, black, brown, yellow, or blue, he or she just wants to hire the best people or the best team.
Sports *fans* might sometimes have taken a different view, but the sports themselves are as close to a meritocracy as one finds.
There are islands of non-meritocracy in British sport, but more class based. Difficult to get into rowing, tennis, rugby union, showjumping and a few others if you’re not posh, not because of active discrimination but simply the culture around those sports in this country.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
I am unconvinced by this argument, while I don't doubt cost is an issue for some and that some might have more children due to it, many don't have kids because they really just don't want to.
While anecdotal, my son got married this year. He and his new wife have no plans for kids and actively don't want any. Nor do most of the couples they are friends with. Nothing to do with cost whatsoever. They have brought a house and they could live quite happily with one wage. The reasons they give for no kids is items such as they like their current lifestyle and they think having children is abusive given they have bought heavily into the world is doomed due to climate change.
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
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.
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
There was in fact, a non-trivial number of black sailors in the 18th century navy, some of whom were commissioned officers. For its time, the navy was meritocratic, and good seamen were in demand, regardless of colour.
The modern equivalent is probably sport. The team manager or selector doesn’t care if you’re white, black, brown, yellow, or blue, he or she just wants to hire the best people or the best team.
Sports *fans* might sometimes have taken a different view, but the sports themselves are as close to a meritocracy as one finds.
There are islands of non-meritocracy in British sport, but more class based. Difficult to get into rowing, tennis, rugby union, showjumping and a few others if you’re not posh, not because of active discrimination but simply the culture around those sports in this country.
Patrick Bamford has had the opposite experience....
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
I am unconvinced by this argument, while I don't doubt cost is an issue for some and that some might have more children due to it, many don't have kids because they really just don't want to.
While anecdotal, my son got married this year. He and his new wife have no plans for kids and actively don't want any. Nor do most of the couples they are friends with. Nothing to do with cost whatsoever. They have brought a house and they could live quite happily with one wage. The reasons they give for no kids is items such as they like their current lifestyle and they think having children is abusive given they have bought heavily into the world is doomed due to climate change.
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
Interesting the personal groups that people live in - the younger people know want to have children but are worried about accommodation and costs.
Several people I know from the older generation actively regret that they didn't have children.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
But who does the work and pays the taxes in the meantime? Your plan requires at least 2 decades before you get any replacement workforce even if everyone reacts to the announcement by immediately holding a great big orgy.
That reminds me of the Lib Dems vetoing more nuclear power stations, under the coalition, because it would take until the far off date of 2024 for them to begin coming into service.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
I am unconvinced by this argument, while I don't doubt cost is an issue for some and that some might have more children due to it, many don't have kids because they really just don't want to.
While anecdotal, my son got married this year. He and his new wife have no plans for kids and actively don't want any. Nor do most of the couples they are friends with. Nothing to do with cost whatsoever. They have brought a house and they could live quite happily with one wage. The reasons they give for no kids is items such as they like their current lifestyle and they think having children is abusive given they have bought heavily into the world is doomed due to climate change.
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
Too many people have bought into the myth that history is a journey from Eden to Hell. It used to be only nostalgic reactionaries who believed that, but now it seems to be widely believed on the left as well, thanks to the catastrophism about climate change.
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.
They already tax and spend. The trouble is they debt and spend at the same time. According to the OBR tax as a percentage of GDP is at its highets since WW2. The common factor - and the one we need to deal with - is the 'spend' element.
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.
It is simply good policy. And will lead overall to bankers being paid less, not more, as currently bankers are just getting higher salaries to make up the difference. It is a foolish cap that has no effect other than dimishing the sector in the UK, and to retain it would be essentially giving up on doing anything beneficial that needed to be explained to the public.
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
There was in fact, a non-trivial number of black sailors in the 18th century navy, some of whom were commissioned officers. For its time, the navy was meritocratic, and good seamen were in demand, regardless of colour.
The modern equivalent is probably sport. The team manager or selector doesn’t care if you’re white, black, brown, yellow, or blue, he or she just wants to hire the best people or the best team.
Sports *fans* might sometimes have taken a different view, but the sports themselves are as close to a meritocracy as one finds.
There are islands of non-meritocracy in British sport, but more class based. Difficult to get into rowing, tennis, rugby union, showjumping and a few others if you’re not posh, not because of active discrimination but simply the culture around those sports in this country.
Really not hard to get into Rugby Union.
I suppose there is the issue that if you are looking to play football and you live in an urban are there will be a club within walking distance, which won't necessarily be true for rugby. But that will also be true of many other sports. And you can't play rugby in the car park behind your house like you can with football.
But the class based element is a bit of a region by region thing. In the North (and possibly in the south east) it tends to be a middle class game. In the Midlands and South West it is much more universal. I used to play for a side in Nottinghamshire - the flyhalf was heir to a country pile and son of a Tory MP, the scrumhalf lived in a caravan by the canal.
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??
Comparative data would be useful. Like how many people can identify any German speaking composer beginning with B, M or S. Or any Cumberland born poet beginning with W. Or a Jewish theoretical physicist beginning with E. Or a midlands born writer of plays beginning with S.
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.
It is simply good policy. And will lead overall to bankers being paid less, not more, as currently bankers are just getting higher salaries to make up the difference. It is a foolish cap that has no effect other than dimishing the sector in the UK, and to retain it would be essentially giving up on doing anything beneficial that needed to be explained to the public.
It’s a transfer of wealth from lower & middling level bankers to bank CEOs.
I thought government was supposed to be on the side of the little people?
Just got my passport renewed in eight days. It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Good lord, a public service actually providing a service? How novel.
Naughty. All the eg online services (MOT, passport, driving license, Vehicle Tax, etc) are pretty damn good online. Like some kind of strange efficient anomaly amidst the chaos.
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
I have to say I find online elements of HMRC to be pretty good as well. The VAT system which is effectively all automated and simply lifts the numbers from a basic spreadsheet programme each quarter works remarkably well, or at least I have had no issues with it.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
I am unconvinced by this argument, while I don't doubt cost is an issue for some and that some might have more children due to it, many don't have kids because they really just don't want to.
While anecdotal, my son got married this year. He and his new wife have no plans for kids and actively don't want any. Nor do most of the couples they are friends with. Nothing to do with cost whatsoever. They have brought a house and they could live quite happily with one wage. The reasons they give for no kids is items such as they like their current lifestyle and they think having children is abusive given they have bought heavily into the world is doomed due to climate change.
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
Interesting the personal groups that people live in - the younger people know want to have children but are worried about accommodation and costs.
Several people I know from the older generation actively regret that they didn't have children.
It is true we all live in our own groups and my son and his friends all tend to have good jobs, stable lives housing wise, could afford to have kids. However they prefer to keep their nice cars, holidays and being able to eat out.
Maybe you have therefore two groups, one which has a relatively nice life with no worries particularly about money which prefers not to have kids to keep that lifestyle and a second group living paycheck to paycheck and don't have kids because it would push them underwater financially and so don't have kids.
On top of that I suspect a lot of them also from both groups have bought into the world is coming to an end for humans due to the shrill climate catastrophism being promulgated by the climate evangelists (for avoidance of doubt yes I believe climate change is happening, I merely don't think it will lead to human extinction)
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.
It is simply good policy. And will lead overall to bankers being paid less, not more, as currently bankers are just getting higher salaries to make up the difference. It is a foolish cap that has no effect other than dimishing the sector in the UK, and to retain it would be essentially giving up on doing anything beneficial that needed to be explained to the public.
It’s a transfer of wealth from lower & middling level bankers to bank CEOs.
I thought government was supposed to be on the side of the little people?
It isn't, for the reason LuckyGuy says.
The bankers cap didn't result in CEOs getting any poorer. It was bad policy created out of spite.
Just got my passport renewed in eight days. It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Good lord, a public service actually providing a service? How novel.
Naughty. All the eg online services (MOT, passport, driving license, Vehicle Tax, etc) are pretty damn good online. Like some kind of strange efficient anomaly amidst the chaos.
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
I have to say I find online elements of HMRC to be pretty good as well. The VAT system which is effectively all automated and simply lifts the numbers from a basic spreadsheet programme each quarter works remarkably well, or at least I have had no issues with it.
True as well. Inheritance tax, on the other hand .... They've never even heard of email.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
I am unconvinced by this argument, while I don't doubt cost is an issue for some and that some might have more children due to it, many don't have kids because they really just don't want to.
While anecdotal, my son got married this year. He and his new wife have no plans for kids and actively don't want any. Nor do most of the couples they are friends with. Nothing to do with cost whatsoever. They have brought a house and they could live quite happily with one wage. The reasons they give for no kids is items such as they like their current lifestyle and they think having children is abusive given they have bought heavily into the world is doomed due to climate change.
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
Interesting the personal groups that people live in - the younger people know want to have children but are worried about accommodation and costs.
Several people I know from the older generation actively regret that they didn't have children.
It is true we all live in our own groups and my son and his friends all tend to have good jobs, stable lives housing wise, could afford to have kids. However they prefer to keep their nice cars, holidays and being able to eat out.
Maybe you have therefore two groups, one which has a relatively nice life with no worries particularly about money which prefers not to have kids to keep that lifestyle and a second group living paycheck to paycheck and don't have kids because it would push them underwater financially and so don't have kids.
On top of that I suspect a lot of them also from both groups have bought into the world is coming to an end for humans due to the shrill climate catastrophism being promulgated by the climate evangelists (for avoidance of doubt yes I believe climate change is happening, I merely don't think it will lead to human extinction)
The cynic of human nature might suggest that the combination of "It would muck up my lifestyle@ and "Its the virtuous thing to do"....
I can also remember some friends who, when they were about 34. were stating that they never wanted children etc. The wedding invites & baptism invites followed within a couple of years....
Perhaps the most hilarious example was one the local GPs - when the subject of future maternity leave came up, she was adamant that she had no plans and regarded the whole thing as an offensive question.
Two years later, she was married with two children (twins). Plus another on the way. She still hasn't come back to medicine...
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.
It is simply good policy. And will lead overall to bankers being paid less, not more, as currently bankers are just getting higher salaries to make up the difference. It is a foolish cap that has no effect other than dimishing the sector in the UK, and to retain it would be essentially giving up on doing anything beneficial that needed to be explained to the public.
It’s a transfer of wealth from lower & middling level bankers to bank CEOs.
I thought government was supposed to be on the side of the little people?
No it isn't. Those CEOs are taking home the same pay as their colleagues from the same companies in their non-bonus cap offices. It's just not as performance dependent. If you want bankers to be paid more for being less effective, support the retention of the cap.
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.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Just got my passport renewed in eight days. It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Good lord, a public service actually providing a service? How novel.
Naughty. All the eg online services (MOT, passport, driving license, Vehicle Tax, etc) are pretty damn good online. Like some kind of strange efficient anomaly amidst the chaos.
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
I have to say I find online elements of HMRC to be pretty good as well. The VAT system which is effectively all automated and simply lifts the numbers from a basic spreadsheet programme each quarter works remarkably well, or at least I have had no issues with it.
The automated online services are all remarkably well done & a feather in the cap of UK plc. The moment you step off the happy path & require hand holding by a bureaucrat things don’t always go so well unfortunately.
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.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Capping bankers' bonuses isn't going to make shoe factories reopen in Northampton.
Obviously a very sad, if all too familiar situation in Maine. But... Is this Trump in drag and if so is this how he intends to beat the criminal charges, by switching ID?
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Constantine the great ….err…that’s it.
He makes 3rd century by birth, but he is a 4th century figure. Try Aurelian or Diocletian.
"The new book from Rachel Reeves cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, The Guardian, a fellow MP and other unacknowledged sources in at least 20 examples of apparent plagiarism. Scoop from @SoumayaKeynes, @GeorgeWParker, @rafeuddin_, @EuanHealy, @stephistacey"
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
There was in fact, a non-trivial number of black sailors in the 18th century navy, some of whom were commissioned officers. For its time, the navy was meritocratic, and good seamen were in demand, regardless of colour.
The modern equivalent is probably sport. The team manager or selector doesn’t care if you’re white, black, brown, yellow, or blue, he or she just wants to hire the best people or the best team.
Sports *fans* might sometimes have taken a different view, but the sports themselves are as close to a meritocracy as one finds.
Football in particular. Every boy has a go at some point when they're young. No need for money or connections. So you can be pretty sure that success is down purely to merit. How talented you are. How hard you work on it.
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting?
The price of not having a large enough replacement rate was discussed in fiction in the film "Children of Men"...
TLDR: if you don't have enough children you end up with not enough young people to look after the old people. So yes it does self-correct, but not in a way you would like.
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”
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.
Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
There was in fact, a non-trivial number of black sailors in the 18th century navy, some of whom were commissioned officers. For its time, the navy was meritocratic, and good seamen were in demand, regardless of colour.
The modern equivalent is probably sport. The team manager or selector doesn’t care if you’re white, black, brown, yellow, or blue, he or she just wants to hire the best people or the best team.
Sports *fans* might sometimes have taken a different view, but the sports themselves are as close to a meritocracy as one finds.
There are islands of non-meritocracy in British sport, but more class based. Difficult to get into rowing, tennis, rugby union, showjumping and a few others if you’re not posh, not because of active discrimination but simply the culture around those sports in this country.
Yes, but that’s a different issue of access rather than discrimination.
On a separate forum, there’s a discussion running about how to get more women into motorsport, which means how to get 8yo and 10yo girls into go-karts.
My conclusion is that we need to ban the noisy, smelly, dirty things that generate too much pollution - horses.
Certain aspects of banking are genuinely wealth creating (Facilitating M&A for instance - or at least the underlying fee creation is entirely private) whereas others are simply arbitrage (Commercial bank loan/deposit rates vs BoE base rate). I think bonuses are appropriate for profits from the former whereas the latter isn't appropriate as it's simply a subcontracting of the BoE's duties to the nation.
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.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Capping bankers' bonuses isn't going to make shoe factories reopen in Northampton.
It'll just boost remuneration in an already bloated and over-remunerated sector.
Having recently attended a talk by Tom Holland on his new book, Pax, about, er, Pax or the Pax Romana I am quite well up on 2nd century AD folk in Britain.
Unaccountably while enumerating the various emperors and discussing Hadrian he completely neglected to tell us whether they were "white" or "black" thinking, preposterously, that "Caesar" would suffice.
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.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Capping bankers' bonuses isn't going to make shoe factories reopen in Northampton.
It'll just boost remuneration in an already bloated and over-remunerated sector.
Just got my passport renewed in eight days. It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Good lord, a public service actually providing a service? How novel.
Naughty. All the eg online services (MOT, passport, driving license, Vehicle Tax, etc) are pretty damn good online. Like some kind of strange efficient anomaly amidst the chaos.
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
I have to say I find online elements of HMRC to be pretty good as well. The VAT system which is effectively all automated and simply lifts the numbers from a basic spreadsheet programme each quarter works remarkably well, or at least I have had no issues with it.
The automated online services are all remarkably well done & a feather in the cap of UK plc. The moment you step off the happy path & require hand holding by a bureaucrat things don’t always go so well unfortunately.
I contacted HMRC by phone over an issue to do with renting out my mother's house (to help pay for care costs). The lady I spoke to was lovely and very helpful. Best experience I've ever had on a helpline.
Having recently attended a talk by Tom Holland on his new book, Pax, about, er, Pax or the Pax Romana I am quite well up on 2nd century AD folk in Britain.
Unaccountably while enumerating the various emperors and discussing Hadrian he completely neglected to tell us whether they were "white" or "black" thinking, preposterously, that "Caesar" would suffice.
"The new book from Rachel Reeves cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, The Guardian, a fellow MP and other unacknowledged sources in at least 20 examples of apparent plagiarism. Scoop from @SoumayaKeynes, @GeorgeWParker, @rafeuddin_, @EuanHealy, @stephistacey"
Embarrassing. Hard to see it changing a single vote.
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.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Capping bankers' bonuses isn't going to make shoe factories reopen in Northampton.
It'll just boost remuneration in an already bloated and over-remunerated sector.
Do you mean that it will boost tax receipts to the Treasury from the top 1%?
"The new book from Rachel Reeves cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, The Guardian, a fellow MP and other unacknowledged sources in at least 20 examples of apparent plagiarism. Scoop from @SoumayaKeynes, @GeorgeWParker, @rafeuddin_, @EuanHealy, @stephistacey"
Embarrassing. Hard to see it changing a single vote.
ChatGPT means that plagiarism has gone mainstream.
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.
It is simply good policy. And will lead overall to bankers being paid less, not more, as currently bankers are just getting higher salaries to make up the difference. It is a foolish cap that has no effect other than dimishing the sector in the UK, and to retain it would be essentially giving up on doing anything beneficial that needed to be explained to the public.
It’s a transfer of wealth from lower & middling level bankers to bank CEOs.
I thought government was supposed to be on the side of the little people?
It isn't, for the reason LuckyGuy says.
The bankers cap didn't result in CEOs getting any poorer. It was bad policy created out of spite.
This is surely a case of Rishi doing the right thing regardless of the politics. Given that he has no chance of being PM after the election he may as well carry out necessary reforms rather than just play to the crowd in the time that he has remaining.
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...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
I am unconvinced by this argument, while I don't doubt cost is an issue for some and that some might have more children due to it, many don't have kids because they really just don't want to.
While anecdotal, my son got married this year. He and his new wife have no plans for kids and actively don't want any. Nor do most of the couples they are friends with. Nothing to do with cost whatsoever. They have brought a house and they could live quite happily with one wage. The reasons they give for no kids is items such as they like their current lifestyle and they think having children is abusive given they have bought heavily into the world is doomed due to climate change.
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
Interesting the personal groups that people live in - the younger people know want to have children but are worried about accommodation and costs.
Several people I know from the older generation actively regret that they didn't have children.
It is true we all live in our own groups and my son and his friends all tend to have good jobs, stable lives housing wise, could afford to have kids. However they prefer to keep their nice cars, holidays and being able to eat out.
Maybe you have therefore two groups, one which has a relatively nice life with no worries particularly about money which prefers not to have kids to keep that lifestyle and a second group living paycheck to paycheck and don't have kids because it would push them underwater financially and so don't have kids.
On top of that I suspect a lot of them also from both groups have bought into the world is coming to an end for humans due to the shrill climate catastrophism being promulgated by the climate evangelists (for avoidance of doubt yes I believe climate change is happening, I merely don't think it will lead to human extinction)
My sanity is partly preserved by spending time in working class small town playgrounds meeting grandchildren from school. From this perspective of multi generational daily gatherings, friends admiring the new babies in the pram, children doing what children do and so on the world looks very different. An an infinitely better place than this childless land we are contemplating.
But, the signs are there even in this northern idyll. Far more are having no more than two children. This world centres around multi generation families, but the pressures on the young are immense.
"The new book from Rachel Reeves cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, The Guardian, a fellow MP and other unacknowledged sources in at least 20 examples of apparent plagiarism. Scoop from @SoumayaKeynes, @GeorgeWParker, @rafeuddin_, @EuanHealy, @stephistacey"
Embarrassing. Hard to see it changing a single vote.
Agree. Reeves has a great backstory, and a cracking CV and knows which way is up, economically.
I might disagree with the way she will choose to employ that knowledge but you can't fault her credentials.
Did she cut and paste from other sources for her book? Who knows but I can't believe anyone would care, really.
Having recently attended a talk by Tom Holland on his new book, Pax, about, er, Pax or the Pax Romana I am quite well up on 2nd century AD folk in Britain.
Unaccountably while enumerating the various emperors and discussing Hadrian he completely neglected to tell us whether they were "white" or "black" thinking, preposterously, that "Caesar" would suffice.
Bloody good multitasking by Tom Holland, doing that and being a teenage superhero from Queens as well. Did he bring Zendaya?
"The new book from Rachel Reeves cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, The Guardian, a fellow MP and other unacknowledged sources in at least 20 examples of apparent plagiarism. Scoop from @SoumayaKeynes, @GeorgeWParker, @rafeuddin_, @EuanHealy, @stephistacey"
Embarrassing. Hard to see it changing a single vote.
Agree. Reeves has a great backstory, and a cracking CV and knows which way is up, economically.
I might disagree with the way she will choose to employ that knowledge but you can't fault her credentials.
Did she cut and paste from other sources for her book? Who knows but I can't believe anyone would care, really.
Well, it's more likely it was ghostwritten. Which isn't really a scandal. She should ask for her money back, though.
Comments
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
It's obviously not a busy time if anyone needs to do it soon.
Which does not excuse North Carolina. Since the Republicans “won” the State Supreme Court, its judges will uphold the gerrymander.
Yes its unpopular, but Governments can take unpopular decisions for the right reason and still be re-elected if they're overall popular (see Iraq and Labour, 2005).
The reason the Tories won't be re-elected next time is because people are hurting in their own family circumstances, struggling to pay either rent or a mortgage. Housing is the reason the Tories will lose the next election, and deserve to do so.
The number of people who would have been happy to vote for the Tories, but now won't because of this, is approximately zero.
In their remaining time in office, the Party should continue to take decisions that it thinks is right for the country, even if they're not necessarily popular. The biggest problem is that this sensible decision is completely out of character and when it comes to other areas they're going for the easy choice, rather than the right thing to do.
Referring back to the original article, there is a rather lovely statue of Equiano made by schoolchildren in our local park. I could have named him, Seacole and the young aristocratic woman, Belle, they made a film about - I can't remember her surname though, probably no other pre-20C black Britons.
He isn’t alone in this of course, but is the most egregious offender. Personally I disagree with folk getting ginormous boni, but I think it’s fair enough for a Tory government to remove the restraints on this as a point of principle, regardless of whether or not most people agree with it.
Tl;dr governments are supposed to govern, not just campaign.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
And Sunak'n'Hunt have form for that. Remember the Rooker–Wise Amendment? Tax thresholds should rise with inflation? Sunak and Hunt have introduced a six year freeze on the basis of about two sentences.
Plenty of doctors out there - playing golf and looking after their grandkids.
I think it is important that people understand and are taught that people of different colours have lived in the UK in small but non trivial numbers historically, and also about the people from around the world who have fought for the British army in world wars, but am not particularly bothered about historic individuals. Which brings me back to the Moggster.....
If you look at Thatcher (and not just her but Lawson/Joseph and others) they spent years in the early 80s taking their arguments around TV studios and radio shows, as well as in Parliament and the papers.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/04/08/captain-jack-the-first-black-skipper-in-the-royal-navy/
lol
the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren
worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
(No doubt HYUFD approves ?)
Republicans’ new Speaker, Mike Johnson: “We don’t live in a democracy,” we live in a “biblical” republic.
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1717349878823563481
Someone who is God-obsessed, openly believes the 2020 election was fraudulent and acted to overturn it, is a gay and women oppressing "Christian" climate change denying lunatic who wants to axe healthcare and social security.
All hail proto-Gilead. Blessed Day.
The Ayshford Trafalgar Roll which is a remarkable piece of work lists one hundred and ninety four sailors from Africa or the West Indies
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
George W Bush was widely ridiculed as a moron - despite those people who met and worked with him pointing out that much of his folksey thing was an act. And yet he was the very last sane Republican politician. Will there be another?
That said, it took me 18 months to get my "Veterans Railcard" over Covid because, simply, there was no one there at all to answer the phones, let alone actually process my request. The answerphone message just said: we're not here.
The Probate Registry, or HMRC, not so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz#Ancestry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67218454
Sports *fans* might sometimes have taken a different view, but the sports themselves are as close to a meritocracy as one finds.
While anecdotal, my son got married this year. He and his new wife have no plans for kids and actively don't want any. Nor do most of the couples they are friends with. Nothing to do with cost whatsoever. They have brought a house and they could live quite happily with one wage. The reasons they give for no kids is items such as they like their current lifestyle and they think having children is abusive given they have bought heavily into the world is doomed due to climate change.
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
Went for three runs but was actually lbw.
https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/EPL/Leeds-striker-Patrick-Bamford-on-fighting-prejudice-that-hes-too-posh-to-be-a-proper-footballer/2554736
Several people I know from the older generation actively regret that they didn't have children.
I suppose there is the issue that if you are looking to play football and you live in an urban are there will be a club within walking distance, which won't necessarily be true for rugby. But that will also be true of many other sports. And you can't play rugby in the car park behind your house like you can with football.
But the class based element is a bit of a region by region thing. In the North (and possibly in the south east) it tends to be a middle class game. In the Midlands and South West it is much more universal. I used to play for a side in Nottinghamshire - the flyhalf was heir to a country pile and son of a Tory MP, the scrumhalf lived in a caravan by the canal.
I thought government was supposed to be on the side of the little people?
Maybe you have therefore two groups, one which has a relatively nice life with no worries particularly about money which prefers not to have kids to keep that lifestyle and a second group living paycheck to paycheck and don't have kids because it would push them underwater financially and so don't have kids.
On top of that I suspect a lot of them also from both groups have bought into the world is coming to an end for humans due to the shrill climate catastrophism being promulgated by the climate evangelists (for avoidance of doubt yes I believe climate change is happening, I merely don't think it will lead to human extinction)
The bankers cap didn't result in CEOs getting any poorer. It was bad policy created out of spite.
Cold war satellite images reveal hundreds of unknown Roman forts
Declassified spy images point to 396 undiscovered forts in Syria and Iraq, shifting understanding of Roman frontier
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/oct/26/cold-war-satellite-images-hundreds-unknown-roman-forts
I can also remember some friends who, when they were about 34. were stating that they never wanted children etc. The wedding invites & baptism invites followed within a couple of years....
Perhaps the most hilarious example was one the local GPs - when the subject of future maternity leave came up, she was adamant that she had no plans and regarded the whole thing as an offensive question.
Two years later, she was married with two children (twins). Plus another on the way. She still hasn't come back to medicine...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-67225016#post_653a1288364b3f1612ec680b
"The new book from Rachel Reeves cuts and pastes from Wikipedia, The Guardian, a fellow MP and other unacknowledged sources in at least 20 examples of apparent plagiarism. Scoop from @SoumayaKeynes, @GeorgeWParker, @rafeuddin_, @EuanHealy, @stephistacey"
TLDR: if you don't have enough children you end up with not enough young people to look after the old people. So yes it does self-correct, but not in a way you would like.
On a separate forum, there’s a discussion running about how to get more women into motorsport, which means how to get 8yo and 10yo girls into go-karts.
My conclusion is that we need to ban the noisy, smelly, dirty things that generate too much pollution - horses.
Unaccountably while enumerating the various emperors and discussing Hadrian he completely neglected to tell us whether they were "white" or "black" thinking, preposterously, that "Caesar" would suffice.
But, the signs are there even in this northern idyll. Far more are having no more than two children. This world centres around multi generation families, but the pressures on the young are immense.
I might disagree with the way she will choose to employ that knowledge but you can't fault her credentials.
Did she cut and paste from other sources for her book? Who knows but I can't believe anyone would care, really.