Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The polls – December 2023 compared with a year ago – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 885
    edited December 2023

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.

    ETA ah I see Londonpubman got there before me. Apologies
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    If the UK economy is finally beginning to decouple from the EU's, and actually perform notably better (certainly than France or Germany) then that is quite a game-changer

    Lots of ifs and buts there, of course. And UK growth is, it can be argued, largely based on clinically insane levels of net migration, nontheless it will be difficult for Remoaners if this becomes a THING

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-the-united-kingdom/

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-france-2010---2021-/

    Look at absolute numbers. Then look at the graph for each country, up to 2016 and then from 2016 onwards.
    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Do you believe that per capita purchasing power was that much higher in France than the UK before Brexit?
    Yes. I’ve seen it myself. Living standards and disposable income are similar across the majority of provincial France to outer London and the Home Counties. And they had nothing like the recessionary contraction we did from the financial crisis.

    I think it’s hard living in inner London to appreciate just how poor most of our country is.
    And I think it is nonsense. Provincial France sounds and looks nice (nicer than many chunks of the UK), and if you have a house in, say, the Burgundy region then it will certainly feel that France is considerably richer than the UK

    And yet if you go to the bainlieues around Lyon, Marseille or Paris, or in the east, then France will feel a lot poorer, and in places poorer than the UK

    As for these precise figures. I am wary. What is this median household fandangle? Is it simply what it says on the tin? The median average income for every household? Then there might several explanations for a disparity

    eg Single person households. Britain has many more than France, 30% of our households are single person, as aganst just 17% in France. That would surely bring down the median a fuck of a lot?

    I may be missing some major detail. Am still quite stoned and listening to neo-folk
    The major detail you are missing is the definition of a median, which I suggest you go look up. When you understand it, you will see that much of your comment is gibberish.
    Despite being right off my nipples, I understand the definition of median

    The formation of households may be different in France (I offer one reason above), leading to this curious disparity

    They may be other shady statitical work afoot, that same page claims that the country with the "fifth highest median income" is..... Ireland.


    Ireland??

    Higher than the USA, Austria or Luxembourg, higher than Denmark, Switzerland, Australia?? Apparently so

    I've been to Ireland, I've been to Switzerland. lol

    Something ain't right with the data
    Ireland’s GDP data are massively distorted by corporate profits. Household income shouldn’t be though. But average household size in Ireland is 2.74 people, so it’s significantly higher than the UK or France. That could account for part of the difference.

    The other thing, though orangemen might disagree, is that Ireland’s Mezzogiorno - Ulster - happens to be accounted for as part of the UK.
    It tells me all the data is rather dodgy, and to be handled with care

    It should not be dismissed entirely, there is obviously some truth here. It *feels* right to me that France is somewhat richer than Britain now (on an average) - we were fecked by the Kredit Krunch, and we are still feeling our way back to a new model, they were less impacted. But I do not think the gulf is nearly as big as this table implies

    Besides, this was not my point. It is performance in very recent years and from now on that concerns me

    If Britain starts to outperform France and Germany that will turn received opinion on its head, esp on the Remainer Left. And of course this is almost inevitable, eventually, everything goes in cycles, and Britain is now significantly decoupled from the EU economy and has likely adapted to the rupture of Brexit. So we will diverge, sometimes do worse - but, yes, sometimes do better
    Actually the point I was trying to make with my original reply - which I somewhat sidetracked by pointing to the absolute data - was the UK annual performance: steep rises till 2016 then flat ever since.
    But using median statistics isn't the best way to make that point if the main variable is where you draw the line between the bottom 50% and the top 50%.
    Our gini coefficient has stayed very stable since 2016. So there is no distortion from changes in inequality in the period.
  • Options
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    If the UK economy is finally beginning to decouple from the EU's, and actually perform notably better (certainly than France or Germany) then that is quite a game-changer

    Lots of ifs and buts there, of course. And UK growth is, it can be argued, largely based on clinically insane levels of net migration, nontheless it will be difficult for Remoaners if this becomes a THING

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-the-united-kingdom/

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-france-2010---2021-/

    Look at absolute numbers. Then look at the graph for each country, up to 2016 and then from 2016 onwards.
    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Do you believe that per capita purchasing power was that much higher in France than the UK before Brexit?
    Yes. I’ve seen it myself. Living standards and disposable income are similar across the majority of provincial France to outer London and the Home Counties. And they had nothing like the recessionary contraction we did from the financial crisis.

    I think it’s hard living in inner London to appreciate just how poor most of our country is.
    And I think it is nonsense. Provincial France sounds and looks nice (nicer than many chunks of the UK), and if you have a house in, say, the Burgundy region then it will certainly feel that France is considerably richer than the UK

    And yet if you go to the bainlieues around Lyon, Marseille or Paris, or in the east, then France will feel a lot poorer, and in places poorer than the UK

    As for these precise figures. I am wary. What is this median household fandangle? Is it simply what it says on the tin? The median average income for every household? Then there might several explanations for a disparity

    eg Single person households. Britain has many more than France, 30% of our households are single person, as aganst just 17% in France. That would surely bring down the median a fuck of a lot?

    I may be missing some major detail. Am still quite stoned and listening to neo-folk
    The major detail you are missing is the definition of a median, which I suggest you go look up. When you understand it, you will see that much of your comment is gibberish.
    Despite being right off my nipples, I understand the definition of median

    The formation of households may be different in France (I offer one reason above), leading to this curious disparity

    They may be other shady statitical work afoot, that same page claims that the country with the "fifth highest median income" is..... Ireland.


    Ireland??

    Higher than the USA, Austria or Luxembourg, higher than Denmark, Switzerland, Australia?? Apparently so

    I've been to Ireland, I've been to Switzerland. lol

    Something ain't right with the data
    According to the ONS consumption per capita in 2019 was:

    Germany 122
    UK 113
    France 109
    Italy 99
    Spain 91
    Poland 79

    In 2019, consumption per head in the UK, measured using actual individual consumption (AIC) per head, was equivalent to the seventh highest in the EU, equal to that of Finland and below the Netherlands and Belgium. This is according to new figures recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and compiled and released by Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, on 15 December 2020.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/actualindividualconsumptionperheadintheuk/2019

    Of course wealth consumption is not the same as wealth creation and the UK does over consume.

    Anecdotes about how rich or poor a country is based on personal experience are dangerous - you can find big extremes of wealth driving from one village to another across much of Yorkshire for example.

    There's also this:

    https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1156460/real-consumer-spending-per-capita-by-country

    Which gives the UK, and other countries, a surprising high place on consumer spending.
    UK savings rate is 17%, France is 24%. So consumption as a percentage of GDP would be 83/76 x France. UK and French GDP per capita (unlike median household income) are virtually identical, so you’d actually expect consumption to be higher than 113/109 - but that may reflect the fact more of our GDP is corporate profits of foreign headquartered companies, like in Ireland.

    EDIT: in 2022 we would be 107 for consumption apparently: https://x.com/bergaslak/status/1735777076928479608?s=46
    Sure, its complicated.

    We could also say that home ownership is much lower in Germany than either France or the UK so that German wealth consumption gives a falsely high sense of affluence.

    All that we know is that there are variations between countries and variations within countries.

    Which isn't a bad thing when different places offer different opportunities and different lifestyles.

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    If the UK economy is finally beginning to decouple from the EU's, and actually perform notably better (certainly than France or Germany) then that is quite a game-changer

    Lots of ifs and buts there, of course. And UK growth is, it can be argued, largely based on clinically insane levels of net migration, nontheless it will be difficult for Remoaners if this becomes a THING

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-the-united-kingdom/

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-france-2010---2021-/

    Look at absolute numbers. Then look at the graph for each country, up to 2016 and then from 2016 onwards.
    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Do you believe that per capita purchasing power was that much higher in France than the UK before Brexit?
    Yes. I’ve seen it myself. Living standards and disposable income are similar across the majority of provincial France to outer London and the Home Counties. And they had nothing like the recessionary contraction we did from the financial crisis.

    I think it’s hard living in inner London to appreciate just how poor most of our country is.
    And I think it is nonsense. Provincial France sounds and looks nice (nicer than many chunks of the UK), and if you have a house in, say, the Burgundy region then it will certainly feel that France is considerably richer than the UK

    And yet if you go to the bainlieues around Lyon, Marseille or Paris, or in the east, then France will feel a lot poorer, and in places poorer than the UK

    As for these precise figures. I am wary. What is this median household fandangle? Is it simply what it says on the tin? The median average income for every household? Then there might several explanations for a disparity

    eg Single person households. Britain has many more than France, 30% of our households are single person, as aganst just 17% in France. That would surely bring down the median a fuck of a lot?

    I may be missing some major detail. Am still quite stoned and listening to neo-folk
    The major detail you are missing is the definition of a median, which I suggest you go look up. When you understand it, you will see that much of your comment is gibberish.
    Despite being right off my nipples, I understand the definition of median

    The formation of households may be different in France (I offer one reason above), leading to this curious disparity

    They may be other shady statitical work afoot, that same page claims that the country with the "fifth highest median income" is..... Ireland.


    Ireland??

    Higher than the USA, Austria or Luxembourg, higher than Denmark, Switzerland, Australia?? Apparently so

    I've been to Ireland, I've been to Switzerland. lol

    Something ain't right with the data
    If they're saying that about Ireland then it proves that the numbers are not useful for making the point that @TimS is trying to make. Using actual individual consumption, which is less subject to statistical distortions, Ireland is still below the EU average.

    image
    One of the micro-annoyances of Brexit is that Britain now gets greyed out in stat maps like this one.
    Switzerland? Albania? Turkey?
    They share data with Eurostat, we currently don’t (clean break etc). That will hopefully change.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    If the UK economy is finally beginning to decouple from the EU's, and actually perform notably better (certainly than France or Germany) then that is quite a game-changer

    Lots of ifs and buts there, of course. And UK growth is, it can be argued, largely based on clinically insane levels of net migration, nontheless it will be difficult for Remoaners if this becomes a THING

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-the-united-kingdom/

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-france-2010---2021-/

    Look at absolute numbers. Then look at the graph for each country, up to 2016 and then from 2016 onwards.
    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Do you believe that per capita purchasing power was that much higher in France than the UK before Brexit?
    Yes. I’ve seen it myself. Living standards and disposable income are similar across the majority of provincial France to outer London and the Home Counties. And they had nothing like the recessionary contraction we did from the financial crisis.

    I think it’s hard living in inner London to appreciate just how poor most of our country is.
    And I think it is nonsense. Provincial France sounds and looks nice (nicer than many chunks of the UK), and if you have a house in, say, the Burgundy region then it will certainly feel that France is considerably richer than the UK

    And yet if you go to the bainlieues around Lyon, Marseille or Paris, or in the east, then France will feel a lot poorer, and in places poorer than the UK

    As for these precise figures. I am wary. What is this median household fandangle? Is it simply what it says on the tin? The median average income for every household? Then there might several explanations for a disparity

    eg Single person households. Britain has many more than France, 30% of our households are single person, as aganst just 17% in France. That would surely bring down the median a fuck of a lot?

    I may be missing some major detail. Am still quite stoned and listening to neo-folk
    The charts show a recovery in the UK from 2010 to 2016 following the financial crisis, so the base level in 2010 is a little suppressed. But the stats are the stats.

    Are households on average larger in France than the UK? 2.18 in France, 2.4 here. So it’s not larger households. Do more households have 2 income earners in France? Quite possibly, but I don’t have the data.

    Median household income in the US is $74k by the way, so they put us both in the shade. And that’s median, so despite their inequality, their unaffordable healthcare, their low life expectancy, they’re still almost twice as rich per median household than we are.

    Britain has some extremely poor areas. That’s the issue. It’s why levelling up is a thing. We’re like Italy with the Mezzogiorno only our Mezzogiorno is colder and damper. Whereas London (and its banlieue) is one of the richest places in Europe.

    https://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

    Richer areas tend to be expensive.
    Poorer areas tend to be cheap.

    The ideal thing is to be rich in a cheap area.

    Staffordshire being the polar opposite of Cornwall...
    Ironically I was thinking of making a Staffs-Surrey comparison on where a teacher (or nurse or factory worker) was most able to buy a house.

    Nominal GDP is not the same as quality of life.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681
    edited December 2023
    The PB Tories are chipper on this polling evidence tonight.

    For a laugh let's mix and match. Labour lowest on 40%. Con best on 29% plus Refuk best on 11% gives us a Lab to Con-Refuk tie at 40%.

    Well you're all writing bollocks so why shouldn't I?

    (That's not to say this time next year, Tories won't win a majority, but on current polling you are all having a giraffe!)
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2023
    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    If the UK economy is finally beginning to decouple from the EU's, and actually perform notably better (certainly than France or Germany) then that is quite a game-changer

    Lots of ifs and buts there, of course. And UK growth is, it can be argued, largely based on clinically insane levels of net migration, nontheless it will be difficult for Remoaners if this becomes a THING

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-the-united-kingdom/

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-france-2010---2021-/

    Look at absolute numbers. Then look at the graph for each country, up to 2016 and then from 2016 onwards.
    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Do you believe that per capita purchasing power was that much higher in France than the UK before Brexit?
    Yes. I’ve seen it myself. Living standards and disposable income are similar across the majority of provincial France to outer London and the Home Counties. And they had nothing like the recessionary contraction we did from the financial crisis.

    I think it’s hard living in inner London to appreciate just how poor most of our country is.
    And I think it is nonsense. Provincial France sounds and looks nice (nicer than many chunks of the UK), and if you have a house in, say, the Burgundy region then it will certainly feel that France is considerably richer than the UK

    And yet if you go to the bainlieues around Lyon, Marseille or Paris, or in the east, then France will feel a lot poorer, and in places poorer than the UK

    As for these precise figures. I am wary. What is this median household fandangle? Is it simply what it says on the tin? The median average income for every household? Then there might several explanations for a disparity

    eg Single person households. Britain has many more than France, 30% of our households are single person, as aganst just 17% in France. That would surely bring down the median a fuck of a lot?

    I may be missing some major detail. Am still quite stoned and listening to neo-folk
    The major detail you are missing is the definition of a median, which I suggest you go look up. When you understand it, you will see that much of your comment is gibberish.
    Despite being right off my nipples, I understand the definition of median

    The formation of households may be different in France (I offer one reason above), leading to this curious disparity

    They may be other shady statitical work afoot, that same page claims that the country with the "fifth highest median income" is..... Ireland.


    Ireland??

    Higher than the USA, Austria or Luxembourg, higher than Denmark, Switzerland, Australia?? Apparently so

    I've been to Ireland, I've been to Switzerland. lol

    Something ain't right with the data
    According to the ONS consumption per capita in 2019 was:

    Germany 122
    UK 113
    France 109
    Italy 99
    Spain 91
    Poland 79

    In 2019, consumption per head in the UK, measured using actual individual consumption (AIC) per head, was equivalent to the seventh highest in the EU, equal to that of Finland and below the Netherlands and Belgium. This is according to new figures recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and compiled and released by Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, on 15 December 2020.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/actualindividualconsumptionperheadintheuk/2019

    Of course wealth consumption is not the same as wealth creation and the UK does over consume.

    Anecdotes about how rich or poor a country is based on personal experience are dangerous - you can find big extremes of wealth driving from one village to another across much of Yorkshire for example.

    There's also this:

    https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1156460/real-consumer-spending-per-capita-by-country

    Which gives the UK, and other countries, a surprising high place on consumer spending.
    UK savings rate is 17%, France is 24%. So consumption as a percentage of GDP would be 83/76 x France. UK and French GDP per capita (unlike median household income) are virtually identical, so you’d actually expect consumption to be higher than 113/109 - but that may reflect the fact more of our GDP is corporate profits of foreign headquartered companies, like in Ireland.

    EDIT: in 2022 we would be 107 for consumption apparently: https://x.com/bergaslak/status/1735777076928479608?s=46
    Sure, its complicated.

    We could also say that home ownership is much lower in Germany than either France or the UK so that German wealth consumption gives a falsely high sense of affluence.

    All that we know is that there are variations between countries and variations within countries.

    Which isn't a bad thing when different places offer different opportunities and different lifestyles.

    There are lots of differences that make comparisons difficult: in Germany, for example, final salary pensions are still very common. That means that households' pension savings are not included in their numbers, while with our defined contributions, they are in the UK.
  • Options

    The PB Tories are chipper on this polling evidence tonight.

    For a laugh let's mix and match. Labour lowest on 40%. Con best on 29% plus Refuk best on 11% gives us a Lab to Con-Refuk tie at 40%.

    Well you're all writing bollocks so why shouldn't I?

    (That's not to say this time next year, Tories won't win a majority, but on current polling you are all having a giraffe!)

    Clearly at the moment Keir is on track to win the biggest majority of all time but...

    it hasn't happened yet.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    edited December 2023
    So what happens now with Giuliani?

    Do his lawyers get their fees before any damages are paid? What is the order of precedence?

    I believe that to appeal this he will have to pay a stonking chunk as a bond. Does that mean no appeal?

    He's not poor but I don't think he has the best part of $200m.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681
    edited December 2023
    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest take on Brexit, could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages and criticism of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Who’d ever have thought it?

    If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.

    Sunak, a disastrous couple of months rowing back on HS2, pushing for Rwanda when it should have been euthanised after the SC ruling. A great campaigner who has been absolutely spanked by useless campaigner Starmer at all three of the last PMQs.

    Penny? Fight, fight, fight for your right to party. Sorry Penny you blew your chance at the Con. Conf.

    Cleverly? Being taken down by his U turn on Rwanda.

    Suella? Well, everything

    Priti? Ditto

    Kemi? An utterly disastrous BSec in post

    Johnson? Not an MP, and a worse PM than Lord North.

    Truss. A worse PM than Johnson.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    If the UK economy is finally beginning to decouple from the EU's, and actually perform notably better (certainly than France or Germany) then that is quite a game-changer

    Lots of ifs and buts there, of course. And UK growth is, it can be argued, largely based on clinically insane levels of net migration, nontheless it will be difficult for Remoaners if this becomes a THING

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-the-united-kingdom/

    https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/macroeconomic/median-household-income-in-france-2010---2021-/

    Look at absolute numbers. Then look at the graph for each country, up to 2016 and then from 2016 onwards.
    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Do you believe that per capita purchasing power was that much higher in France than the UK before Brexit?
    Yes. I’ve seen it myself. Living standards and disposable income are similar across the majority of provincial France to outer London and the Home Counties. And they had nothing like the recessionary contraction we did from the financial crisis.

    I think it’s hard living in inner London to appreciate just how poor most of our country is.
    And I think it is nonsense. Provincial France sounds and looks nice (nicer than many chunks of the UK), and if you have a house in, say, the Burgundy region then it will certainly feel that France is considerably richer than the UK

    And yet if you go to the bainlieues around Lyon, Marseille or Paris, or in the east, then France will feel a lot poorer, and in places poorer than the UK

    As for these precise figures. I am wary. What is this median household fandangle? Is it simply what it says on the tin? The median average income for every household? Then there might several explanations for a disparity

    eg Single person households. Britain has many more than France, 30% of our households are single person, as aganst just 17% in France. That would surely bring down the median a fuck of a lot?

    I may be missing some major detail. Am still quite stoned and listening to neo-folk
    The major detail you are missing is the definition of a median, which I suggest you go look up. When you understand it, you will see that much of your comment is gibberish.
    Despite being right off my nipples, I understand the definition of median

    The formation of households may be different in France (I offer one reason above), leading to this curious disparity

    They may be other shady statitical work afoot, that same page claims that the country with the "fifth highest median income" is..... Ireland.


    Ireland??

    Higher than the USA, Austria or Luxembourg, higher than Denmark, Switzerland, Australia?? Apparently so

    I've been to Ireland, I've been to Switzerland. lol

    Something ain't right with the data
    According to the ONS consumption per capita in 2019 was:

    Germany 122
    UK 113
    France 109
    Italy 99
    Spain 91
    Poland 79

    In 2019, consumption per head in the UK, measured using actual individual consumption (AIC) per head, was equivalent to the seventh highest in the EU, equal to that of Finland and below the Netherlands and Belgium. This is according to new figures recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and compiled and released by Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, on 15 December 2020.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/actualindividualconsumptionperheadintheuk/2019

    Of course wealth consumption is not the same as wealth creation and the UK does over consume.

    Anecdotes about how rich or poor a country is based on personal experience are dangerous - you can find big extremes of wealth driving from one village to another across much of Yorkshire for example.

    There's also this:

    https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1156460/real-consumer-spending-per-capita-by-country

    Which gives the UK, and other countries, a surprising high place on consumer spending.
    UK savings rate is 17%, France is 24%. So consumption as a percentage of GDP would be 83/76 x France. UK and French GDP per capita (unlike median household income) are virtually identical, so you’d actually expect consumption to be higher than 113/109 - but that may reflect the fact more of our GDP is corporate profits of foreign headquartered companies, like in Ireland.

    EDIT: in 2022 we would be 107 for consumption apparently: https://x.com/bergaslak/status/1735777076928479608?s=46
    Sure, its complicated.

    We could also say that home ownership is much lower in Germany than either France or the UK so that German wealth consumption gives a falsely high sense of affluence.

    All that we know is that there are variations between countries and variations within countries.

    Which isn't a bad thing when different places offer different opportunities and different lifestyles.

    There are lots of differences that make comparisons difficult: in Germany, for example, final salary pensions are still very common. That means that households' pension savings are not included in their numbers, while with our defined contributions, they are in the UK.
    On the other side of that one, Germans pay out their own post-tax money towards healthcare, whilst we on the whole do not - except for certain things like dentists, glasses and to jump queues.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest take on Brexit, could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages and criticism of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Who’d ever have thought it?

    If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.

    Sunak, a disastrous couple of months rowing back on HS2, pushing for Rwanda when it should have been euthanised after the SC ruling. A great campaigner who has been absolutely spanked by useless campaigner Starmer at all three of the last PMQs.

    Penny? Fight, fight, fight for your right to party. Sorry Penny you blew your chance at the Con. Conf.

    Cleverly? Being taken down by his U turn on Rwanda.

    Suella? Well, everything

    Priti? Ditto

    Kemi? An utterly disastrous BSec in post

    Johnson? Not an MP, and a worse PM than Lord North.

    Truss. A worse PM than Johnson.
    “ If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.”

    I didn’t say he was making error after error or that he was unfit for office, what are you talking about?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681

    The PB Tories are chipper on this polling evidence tonight.

    For a laugh let's mix and match. Labour lowest on 40%. Con best on 29% plus Refuk best on 11% gives us a Lab to Con-Refuk tie at 40%.

    Well you're all writing bollocks so why shouldn't I?

    (That's not to say this time next year, Tories won't win a majority, but on current polling you are all having a giraffe!)

    Clearly at the moment Keir is on track to win the biggest majority of all time but...

    it hasn't happened yet.
    Indeed he hasn't. I still have a Con majority of 20, but that requires some major black swans favouring the Tories. From the header they are toast.

    But a year is a very long time in politics. I think we can safely say, if Labour lose in Jan 2025, it is game over, they will never be returned as an FPTP government.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    edited December 2023
    From the archives, Ken Chesebro's apology letter emerges (part of his plea deal).

    Not gracious and I think with forked tongue, but he's out of the game, and if necessary he can be made to testify - so perhaps puts a Cordon Sanitaire round potential Trump lies.


  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681
    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest take on Brexit, could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages and criticism of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Who’d ever have thought it?

    If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.

    Sunak, a disastrous couple of months rowing back on HS2, pushing for Rwanda when it should have been euthanised after the SC ruling. A great campaigner who has been absolutely spanked by useless campaigner Starmer at all three of the last PMQs.

    Penny? Fight, fight, fight for your right to party. Sorry Penny you blew your chance at the Con. Conf.

    Cleverly? Being taken down by his U turn on Rwanda.

    Suella? Well, everything

    Priti? Ditto

    Kemi? An utterly disastrous BSec in post

    Johnson? Not an MP, and a worse PM than Lord North.

    Truss. A worse PM than Johnson.
    “ If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.”

    I didn’t say he was making error after error or that he was unfit for office, what are you talking about?
    In a round about way you write something to that effect about 20 times each thread.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,960
    Tim Brighouse has died. An epochal figure in UK education and in some ways the anti-Ofsted. I thought @ydoethur, and others, might be interested.

    https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1735801135988953293
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681
    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    I'd take Dave back if he could turn back time and not call the referendum. I live in hope that it was all a Dallas shower scene, bad dream.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest take on Brexit, could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages and criticism of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Who’d ever have thought it?

    If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.

    Sunak, a disastrous couple of months rowing back on HS2, pushing for Rwanda when it should have been euthanised after the SC ruling. A great campaigner who has been absolutely spanked by useless campaigner Starmer at all three of the last PMQs.

    Penny? Fight, fight, fight for your right to party. Sorry Penny you blew your chance at the Con. Conf.

    Cleverly? Being taken down by his U turn on Rwanda.

    Suella? Well, everything

    Priti? Ditto

    Kemi? An utterly disastrous BSec in post

    Johnson? Not an MP, and a worse PM than Lord North.

    Truss. A worse PM than Johnson.
    “ If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.”

    I didn’t say he was making error after error or that he was unfit for office, what are you talking about?
    In a round about way you write something to that effect about 20 times each thread.
    You’re putting words into my mouth that I never said - I obviously don’t have much time for him, but have never said anything remotely like him being unfit for office or that he’s making any errors.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest take on Brexit, could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages and criticism of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Who’d ever have thought it?

    If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.

    Sunak, a disastrous couple of months rowing back on HS2, pushing for Rwanda when it should have been euthanised after the SC ruling. A great campaigner who has been absolutely spanked by useless campaigner Starmer at all three of the last PMQs.

    Penny? Fight, fight, fight for your right to party. Sorry Penny you blew your chance at the Con. Conf.

    Cleverly? Being taken down by his U turn on Rwanda.

    Suella? Well, everything

    Priti? Ditto

    Kemi? An utterly disastrous BSec in post

    Johnson? Not an MP, and a worse PM than Lord North.

    Truss. A worse PM than Johnson.
    “ If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.”

    I didn’t say he was making error after error or that he was unfit for office, what are you talking about?
    In a round about way you write something to that effect about 20 times each thread.
    You’re putting words into my mouth that I never said - I obviously don’t have much time for him, but have never said anything remotely like him being unfit for office or that he’s making any errors.
    Glad to hear it. We just have to wean you off your Johnson obsession and everything will be good.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If the UK economy is finally beginning to decouple from the EU's, and actually perform notably better (certainly than France or Germany) then that is quite a game-changer

    Lots of ifs and buts there, of course. And UK growth is, it can be argued, largely based on clinically insane levels of net migration, nontheless it will be difficult for Remoaners if this becomes a THING

    In the seven years to Q3 2023 the UK economy has grown by 8% while the EU27 has grown by 11% and the Euro Area by 10%. By contrast in the 10 years to Q2 2016 the UK economy grew by 15%, the EU27 by 8% and the Euro Area by 7%. We have gone from one of the strongest growing major economies in the EU to underperforming both the EU and the Euro Area. We are, it is true, currently doing better than Germany. That reflects the impact of the energy shock on them. Italy is currently doing better than Germany too. Perhaps that is because of Brexit.
    For sure if we start to perform much better than the EU then the narrative around Brexit will change. But that isn't happening yet, and to my mind is quite unlikely to happen.
    We are now doing better than France and Germany, our near peers in the EU in terms of importance, size and population

    It may be a passing phenomenon, if it is not, then it changes a lot

    Italy's performance is interesting, what has gone right for them, all of a sudden? I thought they were fucked by Russian energy prices/non supply
    We're doing the same as France. But we used to do better than France. Italy isn't doing that well but they are doing better than Germany. The basic story is we are doing worse than we used to and so is Germany. I would say we are doing worse because of Brexit plus Osborne austerity plus underlying productivity problems. Germany is doing worse because of energy costs plus falling behind in autos and more generally being an analogue economy in a digital age. I can sort of see how Germany gets out of its current malaise - although they will find it tough. I find it harder to see how we rescue ourselves TBH.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2023

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest take on Brexit, could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages and criticism of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Who’d ever have thought it?

    If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.

    Sunak, a disastrous couple of months rowing back on HS2, pushing for Rwanda when it should have been euthanised after the SC ruling. A great campaigner who has been absolutely spanked by useless campaigner Starmer at all three of the last PMQs.

    Penny? Fight, fight, fight for your right to party. Sorry Penny you blew your chance at the Con. Conf.

    Cleverly? Being taken down by his U turn on Rwanda.

    Suella? Well, everything

    Priti? Ditto

    Kemi? An utterly disastrous BSec in post

    Johnson? Not an MP, and a worse PM than Lord North.

    Truss. A worse PM than Johnson.
    “ If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.”

    I didn’t say he was making error after error or that he was unfit for office, what are you talking about?
    In a round about way you write something to that effect about 20 times each thread.
    You’re putting words into my mouth that I never said - I obviously don’t have much time for him, but have never said anything remotely like him being unfit for office or that he’s making any errors.
    Glad to hear it. We just have to wean you off your Johnson obsession and everything will be good.
    The obsession (or is it a delusion?) is with those who think, against all polling and betting evidence, that the Tories wouldn’t be doing better with Boris in charge. I’m happy to stand my ground on that one
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest take on Brexit, could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages and criticism of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Who’d ever have thought it?

    If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.

    Sunak, a disastrous couple of months rowing back on HS2, pushing for Rwanda when it should have been euthanised after the SC ruling. A great campaigner who has been absolutely spanked by useless campaigner Starmer at all three of the last PMQs.

    Penny? Fight, fight, fight for your right to party. Sorry Penny you blew your chance at the Con. Conf.

    Cleverly? Being taken down by his U turn on Rwanda.

    Suella? Well, everything

    Priti? Ditto

    Kemi? An utterly disastrous BSec in post

    Johnson? Not an MP, and a worse PM than Lord North.

    Truss. A worse PM than Johnson.
    “ If we are looking at a Presidential style election, and you are right that Starmer is making error after error and is unfit for office, let's look at the alternatives.”

    I didn’t say he was making error after error or that he was unfit for office, what are you talking about?
    In a round about way you write something to that effect about 20 times each thread.
    You’re putting words into my mouth that I never said - I obviously don’t have much time for him, but have never said anything remotely like him being unfit for office or that he’s making any errors.
    Glad to hear it. We just have to wean you off your Johnson obsession and everything will be good.
    The obsession (or is it a delusion?) is with those who think, against all polling and betting evidence, that the Tories wouldn’t be doing better with Boris in charge. I’m happy to stand my ground on that one
    They'd be doing worse right now :lol:
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,725
    edited December 2023
    BBC News - Question of Sport stops production, BBC confirms
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67731546

    Who could have predicted that binning Sue Barker and co for Paddy no talent and non sports people, making it a piss poor version of Sky own show would lead to this....but anothwr £10 a year for failure.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,725
    edited December 2023
    BBC News - Perry death an accident caused by ketamine - coroner
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67734397

    Shocked to find that it was drugs despite all the claims to be free of them. You don't just drown in your hot tub by accident without something else being involved.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    edited December 2023

    LOLOLOL

    The Giuliani jury has awarded Freeman and Moss $148.169 million total in damages.

    $16,171,000 for Freeman on defamation
    $16,998,000 for Moss on defamation

    $20,000,000 for Freeman on emotional distress
    $20,000,000 for Moss on emotional distress

    $75,000,000 on punitive


    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1735773003491786865

    Averages out to approx. $3.27 per lie. Cheap at the price.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,545

    Tim Brighouse has died. An epochal figure in UK education and in some ways the anti-Ofsted. I thought @ydoethur, and others, might be interested.

    https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1735801135988953293

    One of those people I should have heard of, but haven't.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    Reposting - Am now watching via YT today's blue plate special served up by latest Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry grilling.

    Barrister for the Inquiry is quite good. As with other Inquiry lawyers, his manner is polite, restrained, focused, relentless.

    In contrast, the solicitor for firm of law-mongers hired by the buffon's then (and now?) the PO is about as hopeless as the local yokel lawyer in "My Cousin Vinnie".

    That is, crap. Wouldn't hire him to notarize a pet license, let alone furnish legal advice above AI standard.

    Fairliered comment on above:

    FR: The Post Office chose lawyers that would make their management look competent by comparison.

    SSI - Didn't work, hell no!

    It is remarkable how that solicitor (from an external legal firm hired by the PO) began confident and articulate, but within a couple of hours was reduced to a gibbering wreck who could barely understand what he was being asked.
    Indeed. The Inquiry inquisitioner's technique was very interesting, and highly effective.

    Kept ratcheting up the temperature from room temperature VERY slowly . . . slowly . . . until before the toad realized what was happening, he was hopping about in a pot of boiling water . . .
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,545
    edited December 2023
    I'd like to ask SeaShantyIrish2 whether he thinks it's certain the Democrats will win Washington state in next year's presidential election.
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    I'd like to ask SeaShantyIrish2 whether he thinks it's certain the Democrats will win Washington state in next year's presidential election.

    Yes.

    You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone out here, including Republicans, who would disagree.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,227
    edited December 2023
    The Clash were talking bollocks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEK9oK02D1M&ab_channel=theclashVEVO

    Giuliana's fate was obvious to anybody following the trial. Repeating the libels on the steps of the court as the jury was about to go to set the level of damages was the hubris that got him into this trouble.

    His fate will be gentle though, compared to the dockside hooker treatment to be meted out to Trump in the New York civil action. That will rob him of his New York empire - and his oft-trotted out notion that he is some great business man.

    And then there's the criminal cases.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,227

    BBC News - Question of Sport stops production, BBC confirms
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67731546

    Who could have predicted that binning Sue Barker and co for Paddy no talent and non sports people, making it a piss poor version of Sky own show would lead to this....but anothwr £10 a year for failure.

    A BBC spokesman insisted the show was "not being cancelled - it is just not in production at the moment".

    The BBC could never countenance making a show now that was essentially for blokes. Although if anyone tried to cancel Woman's Hour....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,725
    edited December 2023

    BBC News - Question of Sport stops production, BBC confirms
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67731546

    Who could have predicted that binning Sue Barker and co for Paddy no talent and non sports people, making it a piss poor version of Sky own show would lead to this....but anothwr £10 a year for failure.

    A BBC spokesman insisted the show was "not being cancelled - it is just not in production at the moment".

    The BBC could never countenance making a show now that was essentially for blokes. Although if anyone tried to cancel Woman's Hour....
    They tried to make to more yuff, but yet again the yuff don't watch the BBC. So they pissed off the 4 million oldies who watched it for nothing. BBC management are about in touch with reality as Jacob Rees Mogg.

    They managed to lose the radio rights for the cricket in India this week.

    Give it another 5 years, its just going to be strictly being their only big show.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477
    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1735568882499211557

    DEI must DIE.

    The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.

    “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are propaganda words for racism, sexism and other -isms.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,423

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1735568882499211557

    DEI must DIE.

    The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.

    “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are propaganda words for racism, sexism and other -isms.

    Elon Musk is just as dangerous as Trump.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402
    edited December 2023

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1735568882499211557

    DEI must DIE.

    The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.

    “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are propaganda words for racism, sexism and other -isms.

    Elon Musk is just as dangerous as Trump.
    What's dangerous is the way that things are bundled together.

    So, I have sympathy with the view that the use of racial quotas disadvantage certain groups: in particular, the way they allow rich whites and rich blacks into elite colleges, at the expense of poorer students.

    On the other hand, I am incredibly nervous that decrying inclusivity is basically saying "god damn it, I should be allowed to make jokes about fudge packers."
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,423
    rcs1000 said:

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1735568882499211557

    DEI must DIE.

    The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.

    “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are propaganda words for racism, sexism and other -isms.

    Elon Musk is just as dangerous as Trump.
    What's dangerous is the way that things are bundled together.

    So, I have sympathy with the view that the use of racial quotas disadvantage certain groups: in particular, the way they allow rich whites and rich blacks into elite colleges, at the expense of poorer students.

    On the other hand, I am incredibly nervous that decrying inclusivity is basically saying "god damn it, I should be allowed to make jokes about fudge packers."
    I think I agree. I think it's perfectly fine to argue that some of these concepts and programs have been taken too far (I might agree or disagree on individual points), or that various people/groups 'use' them unfairly, or that sometimes the rules make no sense even for the groups they are supposed to be helping.

    But I think it's really dangerous to just decry the whole lot as he does in that tweet.
  • Options

    BBC News - Question of Sport stops production, BBC confirms
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67731546

    Who could have predicted that binning Sue Barker and co for Paddy no talent and non sports people, making it a piss poor version of Sky own show would lead to this....but anothwr £10 a year for failure.

    A BBC spokesman insisted the show was "not being cancelled - it is just not in production at the moment".

    The BBC could never countenance making a show now that was essentially for blokes. Although if anyone tried to cancel Woman's Hour....
    They tried to make to more yuff, but yet again the yuff don't watch the BBC. So they pissed off the 4 million oldies who watched it for nothing. BBC management are about in touch with reality as Jacob Rees Mogg.

    They managed to lose the radio rights for the cricket in India this week.

    Give it another 5 years, its just going to be strictly being their only big show.
    Following the news that the BBC is axing Question Of Sport after 53 years, here’s the famous Emlyn Hughes ‘Picture Board’ mistake from 1987.

    An utterly unmissable show back then.

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1735787893497438551
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,008
    edited December 2023

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    If only Sir Keir Starmer KC had some experience getting asked/asking some off centre questions whilst on his feet.
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 885
    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,643
    edited December 2023

    BBC News - Question of Sport stops production, BBC confirms
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67731546

    Who could have predicted that binning Sue Barker and co for Paddy no talent and non sports people, making it a piss poor version of Sky own show would lead to this....but anothwr £10 a year for failure.

    A BBC spokesman insisted the show was "not being cancelled - it is just not in production at the moment".

    The BBC could never countenance making a show now that was essentially for blokes. Although if anyone tried to cancel Woman's Hour....
    They tried to make to more yuff, but yet again the yuff don't watch the BBC. So they pissed off the 4 million oldies who watched it for nothing. BBC management are about in touch with reality as Jacob Rees Mogg.

    They managed to lose the radio rights for the cricket in India this week.

    Give it another 5 years, its just going to be strictly being their only big show.
    With the license fee being around £200 a year in to the bargain.

    So even more money for a failing institution to continue to fail.

    They did the same with radio 2. Got rid of older and popular broadcasters and aimed for a younger audience so losing plenty of listeners who migrate elsewhere while offering nothing to older listeners.

    Perhaps if they looked at what viewers wanted instead of telling them what they should want that would be a good start.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    If only Sir Keir Starmer KC had some experience getting asked/asking some off centre questions whilst on his feet.
    Sir Keir Starmer is The Kitchen Cabinet? :hushed:
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1735568882499211557

    DEI must DIE.

    The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.

    “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are propaganda words for racism, sexism and other -isms.

    I misread that as 'DfE must DIE' and for once in my life was willing to approve of something Musk said.

    Then I considered it unlikely he would have a view on them, and read it more carefully.

    Mind you, even Elon Musk would probably run the nation's education system better than Susan Acland-Hood.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102
    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    IDEA

    Massively increase the university places for doctors. Then send them for training to various third world countries (cheaper). Use the foreign aid budget for this.

    Sell it as reparations for the Empire or something.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223
    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    If only Sir Keir Starmer KC had some experience getting asked/asking some off centre questions whilst on his feet.
    How much time did he send in a courtroom? Many lawyers spend their lives working on paper.”
  • Options

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    If only Sir Keir Starmer KC had some experience getting asked/asking some off centre questions whilst on his feet.
    How much time did he send in a courtroom? Many lawyers spend their lives working on paper.”
    Lots of time.

    You don't become DPP without decent trial/court experience.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    If only Sir Keir Starmer KC had some experience getting asked/asking some off centre questions whilst on his feet.
    How much time did he send in a courtroom? Many lawyers spend their lives working on paper.”
    Lots of time.

    You don't become DPP without decent trial/court experience.
    I remember he worked pro bono on the McLibel case.

    Although I have to admit, that's a case where I hoped both of them would lose.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,227
    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    IDEA

    Massively increase the university places for doctors. Then send them for training to various third world countries (cheaper). Use the foreign aid budget for this.

    Sell it as reparations for the Empire or something.
    Several flaws in that plan, not least that we don't have a very large pool of potential medical students to expand into.

    A second one is that there are not lots of unused quality training opportunities at foreign medical schools.

    The biggest one is that a newly qualified doctor is just the substrate. The expensive and time-consuming bit is the postgraduate training which takes 5-10 years depending on speciality. The vast majority of imported doctors come here to take advantage of what has historically been the high quality of UK postgrad training.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    I was thinking also that (a) is very much the approach Milei is taking in Buenos Aires. It will be interesting to see the effects. My guess is that they are likely to be disastrous, if only because his even more useless cronies are likely to replace them.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102
    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    IDEA

    Massively increase the university places for doctors. Then send them for training to various third world countries (cheaper). Use the foreign aid budget for this.

    Sell it as reparations for the Empire or something.
    Several flaws in that plan, not least that we don't have a very large pool of potential medical students to expand into.

    A second one is that there are not lots of unused quality training opportunities at foreign medical schools.

    The biggest one is that a newly qualified doctor is just the substrate. The expensive and time-consuming bit is the postgraduate training which takes 5-10 years depending on speciality. The vast majority of imported doctors come here to take advantage of what has historically been the high quality of UK postgrad training.
    The enlarged pool of medical students come from those the education system has failed. We have had class increases of 25% (in one year) for some courses at university. No one is whining that the unqualified got in.

    Building teaching hospitals in developing counties seems a better use of money than funding the random “Aid and Death To The West” organisations. And would definitely do less damage to the countries concerned.
  • Options
    theProletheProle Posts: 958
    Taz said:

    BBC News - Question of Sport stops production, BBC confirms
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67731546

    Who could have predicted that binning Sue Barker and co for Paddy no talent and non sports people, making it a piss poor version of Sky own show would lead to this....but anothwr £10 a year for failure.

    A BBC spokesman insisted the show was "not being cancelled - it is just not in production at the moment".

    The BBC could never countenance making a show now that was essentially for blokes. Although if anyone tried to cancel Woman's Hour....
    They tried to make to more yuff, but yet again the yuff don't watch the BBC. So they pissed off the 4 million oldies who watched it for nothing. BBC management are about in touch with reality as Jacob Rees Mogg.

    They managed to lose the radio rights for the cricket in India this week.

    Give it another 5 years, its just going to be strictly being their only big show.
    With the license fee being around £200 a year in to the bargain.

    So even more money for a failing institution to continue to fail.

    They did the same with radio 2. Got rid of older and popular broadcasters and aimed for a younger audience so losing plenty of listeners who migrate elsewhere while offering nothing to older listeners.

    Perhaps if they looked at what viewers wanted instead of telling them what they should want that would be a good start.
    I don't understand why they keep trying to lower the audience age for radio. Why not take the Ford option - they keep introducing slightly bigger cars at each model change, so that the person who had a Fiesta as a teenager stays brand loyal, except they now have a family size car, then periodically they introduce a new small car and start the process again.

    They should have left radio 2 alone (and radio 1), with their massive but aging audiences, and just produced a new "radio braindead" for da youth. They would have had to kill them off in 20-30 years, but that would be some else's problem...!

    Instead they trashed radio 2, sent most of the listeners to Greatest Hits, and now have no music offering for those over 30.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,668
    edited December 2023

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.




    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    That is a stunningly banal and vacuous speech. Starmer is inevitable now. The Tories have disgraced themselves and seem out of ideas. We need a change. But jeez.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,222
    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    IDEA

    Massively increase the university places for doctors. Then send them for training to various third world countries (cheaper). Use the foreign aid budget for this.

    Sell it as reparations for the Empire or something.
    Several flaws in that plan, not least that we don't have a very large pool of potential medical students to expand into.

    A second one is that there are not lots of unused quality training opportunities at foreign medical schools.

    The biggest one is that a newly qualified doctor is just the substrate. The expensive and time-consuming bit is the postgraduate training which takes 5-10 years depending on speciality. The vast majority of imported doctors come here to take advantage of what has historically been the high quality of UK postgrad training.
    What is interesting in this connection is the surreptitious introduction of “physician associates “, who are apparently intended to reduce the load on “ proper doctors”!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    I was thinking also that (a) is very much the approach Milei is taking in Buenos Aires. It will be interesting to see the effects. My guess is that they are likely to be disastrous, if only because his even more useless cronies are likely to replace them.
    Getting rid of departments only works if you also cut the requirements too.

    So getting rid of Diversity and Inclusion officers only works if you get rid of all the requirements of the Equalities acts. If you do the first without the second then you are just renaming people with some other HR label.

    Similarly you can only abolish the Department of Education or Health by getting rid of those departments functions, perhaps by abolishing any overview, management or accountability above district level. There is something to be said for such radical decentralisation, but it does require a hands off approach when it becomes seriously dysfunctional in one or other district.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    I was thinking also that (a) is very much the approach Milei is taking in Buenos Aires. It will be interesting to see the effects. My guess is that they are likely to be disastrous, if only because his even more useless cronies are likely to replace them.
    The Truss of the river Plate.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,423
    ydoethur said:

    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1735568882499211557

    DEI must DIE.

    The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.

    “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are propaganda words for racism, sexism and other -isms.

    I misread that as 'DfE must DIE' and for once in my life was willing to approve of something Musk said.

    Then I considered it unlikely he would have a view on them, and read it more carefully.

    Mind you, even Elon Musk would probably run the nation's education system better than Susan Acland-Hood.
    Well, he wants to start a school and university, and you can imagine what a beacon of inclusivity and diversity it will be. The sons and daughters of tech bros and the influential only; plebs p*ss off!

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/14/tech/elon-musk-funding-new-austin-school/index.html
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    IDEA

    Massively increase the university places for doctors. Then send them for training to various third world countries (cheaper). Use the foreign aid budget for this.

    Sell it as reparations for the Empire or something.
    Several flaws in that plan, not least that we don't have a very large pool of potential medical students to expand into.

    A second one is that there are not lots of unused quality training opportunities at foreign medical schools.

    The biggest one is that a newly qualified doctor is just the substrate. The expensive and time-consuming bit is the postgraduate training which takes 5-10 years depending on speciality. The vast majority of imported doctors come here to take advantage of what has historically been the high quality of UK postgrad training.
    The enlarged pool of medical students come from those the education system has failed. We have had class increases of 25% (in one year) for some courses at university. No one is whining that the unqualified got in.
    That isn't true. There are massive dropout and expulsion rates because of effective academic dilution during the covid period.

    The expensive part of a teaching hospital is not the physical structure but rather the expense of paying highly qualified professionals to teach. Motivated senior clinicians are needed, and are both expensive and in short supply. I know because I an one of them! Indeed I have been interviewing prospective medical students this week.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,668
    I remain to be convinced that Starmer has any clear vision of what he wants to do. He wants to do things better. Well, yes. He wants the state to deliver for people. Good luck with that. He wants people to get on. Which is rather up to them. It is so vague, so amorphous and capable of changing into anything that I don’t see a coherent agenda, a driver for change.

    I really hope that I am wrong. I really and genuinely hope that he surprises us on the upside. God knows the country needs an improvement.
  • Options
    So many people want it defined

    Whether one considers it a vital virtue or a dogmatic danger, surely this picture more than defines - it encapsulates the very essence, perhaps even the yolk, of woke


  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    IDEA

    Massively increase the university places for doctors. Then send them for training to various third world countries (cheaper). Use the foreign aid budget for this.

    Sell it as reparations for the Empire or something.
    Several flaws in that plan, not least that we don't have a very large pool of potential medical students to expand into.

    A second one is that there are not lots of unused quality training opportunities at foreign medical schools.

    The biggest one is that a newly qualified doctor is just the substrate. The expensive and time-consuming bit is the postgraduate training which takes 5-10 years depending on speciality. The vast majority of imported doctors come here to take advantage of what has historically been the high quality of UK postgrad training.
    What is interesting in this connection is the surreptitious introduction of “physician associates “, who are apparently intended to reduce the load on “ proper doctors”!
    PA'S and other "noctors"* can be a great asset. They are widely used in America (from where we imported the idea) and also in Africa. I worked with some very good ones in Malawi. They work best by amplifying the number of people that I can see in clinic, as I shuttle between rooms with them doing the work up.

    They are not suitable for autonomous practice, and require well defined roles with accountability and a clear supervisory structure to be safe.

    The biggest grievance on medical twitter about them is that the PAs get the expensive training and supervision, while the medical postgraduates get shunted off to do the donkey work.

    *a rather pejorative term for non-doctors doing roles previously in the medical domain such as diagnosing and treating.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806
    edited December 2023
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    I was thinking also that (a) is very much the approach Milei is taking in Buenos Aires. It will be interesting to see the effects. My guess is that they are likely to be disastrous, if only because his even more useless cronies are likely to replace them.
    Getting rid of departments only works if you also cut the requirements too.

    So getting rid of Diversity and Inclusion officers only works if you get rid of all the requirements of the Equalities acts. If you do the first without the second then you are just renaming people with some other HR label.

    Similarly you can only abolish the Department of Education or Health by getting rid of those departments functions, perhaps by abolishing any overview, management or accountability above district level. There is something to be said for such radical decentralisation, but it does require a hands off approach when it becomes seriously dysfunctional in one or other district.
    To be fair, there are very few functions the DfE does that need to be done to provide a decent education.

    It doesn't lead school inspections. It doesn't set the curriculum. It doesn't oversee exams. It doesn't do anything on HS that the HSE wouldn't do a hundred times better. It doesn't control appointments.

    It does set the regulatory framework, but there are other (probably better) ways it could be done.

    It also provides funding for academy schools and LEAs, but that doesn't require a whole government department particularly one which cannot do basic arithmetic.

    It does create rather a lot of pointless work (including paperwork) to justify its existence.

    It does officially at least manage teacher training, but that would be better managed by the unis and academy chains themselves (or indeed a monkey on a stick).

    So I can see how getting rid of it could be done without much trouble.

    The concern I would have is that if it was replaced by a smaller Board of Education overseeing these quangoes it would probably be run by people who were worse. Losing Acland-Hood and gaining a 25-person department run by Cummings or Freedman would be the greater of two evils.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,222
    DavidL said:

    I remain to be convinced that Starmer has any clear vision of what he wants to do. He wants to do things better. Well, yes. He wants the state to deliver for people. Good luck with that. He wants people to get on. Which is rather up to them. It is so vague, so amorphous and capable of changing into anything that I don’t see a coherent agenda, a driver for change.

    I really hope that I am wrong. I really and genuinely hope that he surprises us on the upside. God knows the country needs an improvement.

    YES!! It’s high time we had a bit more definition from Starmer.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223
    DavidL said:

    I remain to be convinced that Starmer has any clear vision of what he wants to do. He wants to do things better. Well, yes. He wants the state to deliver for people. Good luck with that. He wants people to get on. Which is rather up to them. It is so vague, so amorphous and capable of changing into anything that I don’t see a coherent agenda, a driver for change.

    I really hope that I am wrong. I really and genuinely hope that he surprises us on the upside. God knows the country needs an improvement.

    There is a lot to be said for competent, professional management and disciplined delivery of public services, but that should be a bare minimum.

    It is something that has been sorely lacking in recent years, and not just at Westminster. Scotland and the other devolved nations have been no better at it, indeed often even worse.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    Are you a natural born citizen?

    If not I'm afraid you don't qualify.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    I remain to be convinced that Starmer has any clear vision of what he wants to do. He wants to do things better. Well, yes. He wants the state to deliver for people. Good luck with that. He wants people to get on. Which is rather up to them. It is so vague, so amorphous and capable of changing into anything that I don’t see a coherent agenda, a driver for change.

    I really hope that I am wrong. I really and genuinely hope that he surprises us on the upside. God knows the country needs an improvement.

    I agree with you up to a point. Quiet competence and government in the national interest would represent a radical departure from the current lot. But it would be good if Starmer could also articulate an alternative vision for the country. He is certainly deficient in this regard - one reason why I didn't vote for him as Labour leader. I still think he will do a reasonably good job, and will probably surprise to the upside as he has a tendency to.
  • Options

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    Good. Very best wishes.
  • Options

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    That's great, congratulations and good luck.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    I remain to be convinced that Starmer has any clear vision of what he wants to do. He wants to do things better. Well, yes. He wants the state to deliver for people. Good luck with that. He wants people to get on. Which is rather up to them. It is so vague, so amorphous and capable of changing into anything that I don’t see a coherent agenda, a driver for change.

    I really hope that I am wrong. I really and genuinely hope that he surprises us on the upside. God knows the country needs an improvement.

    There is a lot to be said for competent, professional management and disciplined delivery of public services, but that should be a bare minimum.

    It is something that has been sorely lacking in recent years, and not just at Westminster. Scotland and the other devolved nations have been no better at it, indeed often even worse.
    It should be a bare minimum, Fox, but it would nevertheless be a massive improvement.

    Starmer is extraordinarily lucky. No Government in my lifetime has set the bar so low in terms of sound administration.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    I was thinking also that (a) is very much the approach Milei is taking in Buenos Aires. It will be interesting to see the effects. My guess is that they are likely to be disastrous, if only because his even more useless cronies are likely to replace them.
    Getting rid of departments only works if you also cut the requirements too.

    So getting rid of Diversity and Inclusion officers only works if you get rid of all the requirements of the Equalities acts. If you do the first without the second then you are just renaming people with some other HR label.

    Similarly you can only abolish the Department of Education or Health by getting rid of those departments functions, perhaps by abolishing any overview, management or accountability above district level. There is something to be said for such radical decentralisation, but it does require a hands off approach when it becomes seriously dysfunctional in one or other district.
    To be fair, there are very few functions the DfE does that need to be done to provide a decent education.

    It doesn't lead school inspections. It doesn't set the curriculum. It doesn't oversee exams. It doesn't do anything on HS that the HSE wouldn't do a hundred times better. It doesn't control appointments.

    It does set the regulatory framework, but there are other (probably better) ways it could be done.

    It also provides funding for academy schools and LEAs, but that doesn't require a whole government department particularly one which cannot do basic arithmetic.

    It does create rather a lot of pointless work (including paperwork) to justify its existence.

    It does officially at least manage teacher training, but that would be better managed by the unis and academy chains themselves (or indeed a monkey on a stick).

    So I can see how getting rid of it could be done without much trouble.

    The concern I would have is that if it was replaced by a smaller Board of Education overseeing these quangoes it would probably be run by people who were worse. Losing Acland-Hood and gaining a 25-person department run by Cummings or Freedman would be the greater of two evils.
    The idea that we require government depts to exist to administer the requirements of the Equalities Act is fairly damning. Of us….

    Give the skills of the DfE in other areas, how many schools have a KKK klavern?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102

    So many people want it defined

    Whether one considers it a vital virtue or a dogmatic danger, surely this picture more than defines - it encapsulates the very essence, perhaps even the yolk, of woke


    Really bad carpet?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,227
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    They were poorly run and failing during the Wilson/ Callaghan era. They were poorly run and failing during the Blair/Brown era. The idea there was some golden age of public services during previous Labour administraions is nonsense.

    What this country needs is the Conservatives and Labour working together on a 10 or 20 year programme for public services. One that would survive a change in administration, where there would be a great political price to be paid if one party or the other tried to backslide. One that would take difficult decisons and follow through on them.

    There should be a common aim to deliver this, because any government is going to struggle to provide services that don't massively disappoint. Waiting lists won't notably imporve under a new Labour government. The bare minimum will be all that gets delivered, without any advance on the level of service. There isn't funding available, there aren't the trained staff. Labour is deeply dishonest to suggets otherwise.

    A Labour government will spend its term tinkering, to very little effect. But hey, it will be better than the Tories. (Spoiler: it won't....)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,806

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    They were poorly run and failing during the Wilson/ Callaghan era. They were poorly run and failing during the Blair/Brown era. The idea there was some golden age of public services during previous Labour administraions is nonsense.

    What this country needs is the Conservatives and Labour working together on a 10 or 20 year programme for public services. One that would survive a change in administration, where there would be a great political price to be paid if one party or the other tried to backslide. One that would take difficult decisons and follow through on them.

    There should be a common aim to deliver this, because any government is going to struggle to provide services that don't massively disappoint. Waiting lists won't notably imporve under a new Labour government. The bare minimum will be all that gets delivered, without any advance on the level of service. There isn't funding available, there aren't the trained staff. Labour is deeply dishonest to suggets otherwise.

    A Labour government will spend its term tinkering, to very little effect. But hey, it will be better than the Tories. (Spoiler: it won't....)
    It is vanishingly unlikely it won't be better than *these* Tories, at least at first.

    Sunak's decisions only can't be described as completely mad because mad people are usually capable of saner decisions than Rwanda, HS2 and NI.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Royale, if you win, will that make you the Member of PB for Steampunk?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    So many people want it defined

    Whether one considers it a vital virtue or a dogmatic danger, surely this picture more than defines - it encapsulates the very essence, perhaps even the yolk, of woke


    Really bad carpet?
    The carpet is alright, but you are right that the photo is jarring. Poor composition in my view.

    Angela's pink jacket is too bright for the background, and her and Keir are too far apart*. The conjunction of the symmetry of the room and positions with the asymmetry of clothing is wrong too. If Starmer was on his left knee rather than right, it would also force better hand position, giving more positive body language of unity rather than discord.

    * perhaps forced by covid social distancing.
  • Options

    So many people want it defined

    Whether one considers it a vital virtue or a dogmatic danger, surely this picture more than defines - it encapsulates the very essence, perhaps even the yolk, of woke


    Two white people?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,889
    But if we take the YouGov from last year, and the Deltapoll from this year, Labour's lead has been slashed.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    Ah. Society not government. Big or otherwise.

    There's a lot to be said for it, though it depends on more people being less frazzled. And the 2010 iteration had far to heavy a load of reducing government expenditure put on it

    Good luck.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    What is your position on heritage diesels?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,355
    edited December 2023
    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    [edited] Yet that is indeed effectively what a lot of our Brexiters have been saying on PB as an argument for Brexit. Brexit is about importing people from all over the world, ie from poor countries, rather than Europeans, who are just as rich or richer on average, or so we have been told by them.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    So many people want it defined

    Whether one considers it a vital virtue or a dogmatic danger, surely this picture more than defines - it encapsulates the very essence, perhaps even the yolk, of woke


    Two white people?
    That too. A gesture of solidarity would be stronger in a larger and more diverse group.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    What is your position on heritage diesels?
    Steam trains cause pollution!

    OO gauge is crap cos it combines 1:76 scale train bodies with 1:87 scale track!
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,355

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    What is your position on heritage diesels?
    And, for inclusivity, installing overhead wiring and pantographs?
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    They were poorly run and failing during the Wilson/ Callaghan era. They were poorly run and failing during the Blair/Brown era. The idea there was some golden age of public services during previous Labour administraions is nonsense.

    What this country needs is the Conservatives and Labour working together on a 10 or 20 year programme for public services. One that would survive a change in administration, where there would be a great political price to be paid if one party or the other tried to backslide. One that would take difficult decisons and follow through on them.

    There should be a common aim to deliver this, because any government is going to struggle to provide services that don't massively disappoint. Waiting lists won't notably imporve under a new Labour government. The bare minimum will be all that gets delivered, without any advance on the level of service. There isn't funding available, there aren't the trained staff. Labour is deeply dishonest to suggets otherwise.

    A Labour government will spend its term tinkering, to very little effect. But hey, it will be better than the Tories. (Spoiler: it won't....)
    The Conservatives or Labour will never agree a 10 to 20 year plan for public services as they both use the ground to fight their electoral and ideological wars on. What would they be left with? social and culture wars? Tax and spend?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    What is your position on heritage diesels?
    Too woke...
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,889
    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    The leader of the Labour Party advocating polices in the interest of working people. The very people that the party was established to represent. Has he gone totally mad? Isn't there some woke bollocks he can wibble about instead?

  • Options

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    What is your position on heritage diesels?
    Normally seated.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,889

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    Sunak had a much easier ride to become PM!
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,163
    edited December 2023
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    maxh said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    maxh said:

    geoffw said:

     

    Thanks for the explanation Sir Keir

    That's all clear now

    https://twitter.com/Hammer_On_X/status/1735711452168691753

    The great hope of the left exposed in the searchlight of a simple question
    That clip sums up in a nutshell why I am probably the only one on this website who thinks SKS will not win and the Tories have a fighting chance.

    You can get away with such a duff answer when the electorate is not really thinking about you as next PM and hates the Government.

    It’s another thing when it swings into an election campaign and then everyone is suddenly forced into having to make a choice.

    Chances are SKS will get eviscerated in a campaign. Give him any slightly off centre question - ‘define working class’, ‘define a woman etc’ - and he waffles and sounds vacuous.

    He’s got 2017 Theresa May vintage written all over him.
    The trouble is, Sunak's got collapse of May era written all over him. Constant relaunches, reboots, podia. Tears outside number 10 can't be too far off. So it's May vs. May.
    Sounds ripe for an ‘I agree with Nick’ moment.

    Perhaps ‘I agree with Nigel’ this time? Perish the thought.
    Seems to be happening. Here’s Sir Keir’s latest U-turn on Brexit; could be Farage talking (apart from the Labour bit obviously)

    “ Brexit was a vote for lower immigration – of course it was […] If, in short, you want lower migration and higher wages […] Then I say again,
    this is what a changed Labour Party will deliver”

    On the Tories

    “ every time they run-up against a choice between raising skills and working conditions or issuing more visas, they choose the higher migration option. And that’s not an accident, it’s who they are”

    https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-in-buckinghamshire/

    Mass immigration means low wages, and a damning critique of politicians who give out jobs to foreigners. Whoever would have thought it?

    To be honest, this is exactly what I voted Leave for - so politicians had to make speeches like this rather than say they wished they could do something about it, but their hands were tied by FOM

    Better PM Starmer and the UK out of the EU than PM Cameron and us still in it
    And in return, if Brexit was about stopping
    the neocolonialist practice of nicking all the
    skilled brown and black people once a
    government much less rich than ours has
    spent public money training them, I’d have
    been more inclined to vote for Brexit too.
    (I realise this is far from the actual purpose of Brexit, but doesn’t sound a million miles from what SKS is saying in the speech).
    Though nothing in the idea of raising domestic skills required Brexit, it has always been in the hands of domestic government.

    Brexit has been a distraction from addressing the problems of this nation, not the solution to the problem.

    Starmers speech is interesting and gives some idea of how he plans to campaign. Not gimmicks like the Rwanda groundnut scheme, but addressing the comprehensive failure of public services.
    The only way he can "address the comprehensive failure of public services" is a) speak truth to the management structure about their massive and long-standing delivery failures - and then sack the underperformers; or b) throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Labour, owned by the unions, will ALWAYS go route b). So the question is - are they lying when they say they will address the comprehensive failures, or lying when they say they won't significantly put up taxes in order to throw a lot of money at the problem.

    Probably both. Starmer will raise taxes but not turn around public services.
    Not a very effective attack line by the Tories because:

    1) the "useless management structures" have been devised and run by Conservatives over the last 13 years.

    2) the argument accepts that public services are failing.

    Why would anyone want to continue with this government's policy on public services which we all agree now are poorly run and failing?
    They were poorly run and failing during the Wilson/ Callaghan era. They were poorly run and failing during the Blair/Brown era. The idea there was some golden age of public services during previous Labour administraions is nonsense.

    What this country needs is the Conservatives and Labour working together on a 10 or 20 year programme for public services. One that would survive a change in administration, where there would be a great political price to be paid if one party or the other tried to backslide. One that would take difficult decisons and follow through on them.

    There should be a common aim to deliver this, because any government is going to struggle to provide services that don't massively disappoint. Waiting lists won't notably imporve under a new Labour government. The bare minimum will be all that gets delivered, without any advance on the level of service. There isn't funding available, there aren't the trained staff. Labour is deeply dishonest to suggets otherwise.

    A Labour government will spend its term tinkering, to very little effect. But hey, it will be better than the Tories. (Spoiler: it won't....)
    I understand the negativity of the Tory message on this, but it doesn't actually match reality.



    The graph of public satisfaction is pretty much the inverse, with satisfaction with the NHS peaking at 70% in 2010 and now down in the twenties.
    I do hope Labour have the sense to slap this as a poster on every available bill board in the country.

    Sure, Tories will wail "it's not fair, Covid, GFC hangover, 'reasons', etc, etc..." but their wailing will be pointless against the power of this chart.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,889

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    What is your position on heritage diesels?
    My position is flailing out of the front droplight window.

    My Lords!
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    I've decided to run for election next year.

    For the Conservatives, I presume, good luck!

    A good time to start a political career is at the nadir of a parties fortunes, as that is when the recovery starts.

    I think that I wouldn't be successful in politics. My views are too idiosyncratic for party politics.
    Not quite. I am standing for election to be a trustee of a heritage engineering & railway trust.

    I had a couple of informal preliminary interviews, and then had to go in front of their Nominations Committee - which was tough - after which I had a 2-hour 1:1 meeting with the CEO. They approved my application last week.

    I've just written my election statement, and now have to speak at the AGM in February where I will hopefully be elected by the members.

    There are 3,000 of them. Hopefully, they won't all turn up!
    What is your position on heritage diesels?
    And, for inclusivity, installing overhead wiring and pantographs?
    Third rail is much less visually obtrusive!
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    I remain to be convinced that Starmer has any clear vision of what he wants to do. He wants to do things better. Well, yes. He wants the state to deliver for people. Good luck with that. He wants people to get on. Which is rather up to them. It is so vague, so amorphous and capable of changing into anything that I don’t see a coherent agenda, a driver for change.

    I really hope that I am wrong. I really and genuinely hope that he surprises us on the upside. God knows the country needs an improvement.

    There is a lot to be said for competent, professional management and disciplined delivery of public services, but that should be a bare minimum.

    It is something that has been sorely lacking in recent years, and not just at Westminster. Scotland and the other devolved nations have been no better at it, indeed often even worse.
    It should be a bare minimum, Fox, but it would nevertheless be a massive improvement.

    Starmer is extraordinarily lucky. No Government in my lifetime has set the bar so low in terms of sound administration.

    This is true. The economy is also going to slowly creak back to life during 2024. People will very gradually start to feel a little bit better off. Put it all together and if Labour does get into power, it will have to perform quite spectacularly badly for things not to be looking more positive domestically (internationally is a very different story) in four or five years than they do now. Add a further Tory lurch to the right in oppositions and you are probably looking at two terms.

    However, Labour has to win the first GE and, despite the poll leads, that remains far from a done deal. Refugees on planes to Rwanda, further tax cuts and that general slow economic improvement could yet salvage the Tories. I'd hate that, of course, but I can see some tiny silver lining in that it may mean the further Tory lurch to the right is avoided.

This discussion has been closed.