Also if you want to know all the Ministers and others involved I did the work for you - and even put it in a header for you. But do you ungrateful bastards read them???
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
A history lesson from me, some of you don't realise just how lucky you are.
My history teachers at school learned to hate me, for always challenging their version of history. I clearly havn’t grown out of it.
For the first chart in your history lesson, where are they getting the poll leads data? From just one firm, or from an average from a select of firms?
With swingometers in our mind we would assume what they calling 2010 Swingback is from Cameron to Brown? off the top of my head the true history was that didn’t happen to that degree, more likely libdems eating into Cameron’s votes in election run up. In 2010 there Could have been swing from Tories to all other parties as election drew near, on basis don’t trust Tories with NHS etc. but that was just the same as the anti Tory tactical vote in the three elections which proceeded it.
Even in these tables to sell a particular point of view, it’s not always main opposition to government swingback is it?
Which makes me argue, in 2024, what are we calling “Swingback in line with history?” From who to who? For there is no clear history there in the first place.
In fact our evidence from run up to this current election proves how ropey “historical swingback” argument is. Are we seeing any From Labour to Conservative swing yet? over the last few months, the trend of Lab to Con is not happening, the only clear swinging over recent months has been Conservative votes to Reform.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
Been watching Mr Bates vs The Post Office, and I’m left wondering about a couple of things, none of which, so far have been covered. If they have, I’m sure I’ll soon be put right! 1) Many sub-post offices are, nowadays, in the hands of businesses. Our local one is, for example, in a branch of McColls. Others are in branches of such companies as WH Smith. Have there been ‘Horizon problems’ in any of them, and if so what happened? 2) Some hundreds of sub-postmasters have, as we know had such problems. Some at least of their branches have been reopened under new management. Were there any problems there, or were the terminals and/or the ‘pin-pad’ replaced?
Re: your #1, is it overly cynical to opine, that the firms you mention & others managing PO branches, have access to legal resources AND old-school-tie/political donor establishment-Westminster connections NOT available to 99.46% of mom-and-pop postmasters?
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
Milton Friedman argued that immigration is only good when it's illegal because then the people coming in have to make their own way.
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
The UK government website has a whole section advertising what is on offer for asylum seekers, including people who have been refused asylum.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
Been watching Mr Bates vs The Post Office, and I’m left wondering about a couple of things, none of which, so far have been covered. If they have, I’m sure I’ll soon be put right! 1) Many sub-post offices are, nowadays, in the hands of businesses. Our local one is, for example, in a branch of McColls. Others are in branches of such companies as WH Smith. Have there been ‘Horizon problems’ in any of them, and if so what happened? 2) Some hundreds of sub-postmasters have, as we know had such problems. Some at least of their branches have been reopened under new management. Were there any problems there, or were the terminals and/or the ‘pin-pad’ replaced?
Re: your #1, is it overly cynical to opine, that the firms you mention & others managing PO branches, have access to legal resources AND old-school-tie/political donor establishment-Westminster connections NOT available to 99.46% of mom-and-pop postmasters?
Tempting of course, but I suspect it’s something to do with the contract, and the fact that all sorts of employees can be sent to work on the Post Office counter.
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
Precisely what country-club Republicans desire, and have engineered. Along with corporate-comfortable Democrats.
Fed of course by sustained, indeed insatiable demands of American economy for more and more and more labor.
Aside from hiccups due tor depression and war resulting in mass immigration throughout American history. With period from 1920s - 1940s being main exception.
Which by coincidence - or rather NOT - was same era of mass internal migration by Blacks out of the South to Northeast, Midwest and West.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
Errr, 60,000 is tiny in the context of 2 million.
That's how numbers work.
You got the country wrong, the method wrong, the trajectory wrong. Other than that, yours was a brilliant remark
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
Errr, 60,000 is tiny in the context of 2 million.
That's how numbers work.
3%
That's comparable to America's Defence Budget as a percentage of GDP.
Also if you want to know all the Ministers and others involved I did the work for you - and even put it in a header for you. But do you ungrateful bastards read them???
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
The UK government website has a whole section advertising what is on offer for asylum seekers, including people who have been refused asylum.
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
When I did my video - released during the Trump era - I specifically pointed to the lack of legal consequences for employers in the US.
ICE raided hundreds of Seven Eleven stores in the US, caught dozens of illegal immigrants, and the consequences for either Southland Corporation (which owns Seven Eleven) or the managers of those stores was zero. The only downside was that they needed to find new workers.
This is a long running issue in the US. Dozens of sectors - hospitality, construction, agriculture - are completely dependent on imported illegal labour. And the people in those sectors are donors.
And so the dance continues. There is massive demand pull for illegal labour. No government since the Bush Sr administration has dared upset their donors by tacking demand. And so they try and stick bandaids on it at the border.
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Not necessarily in independent Eastern countries. In Africa and India power came from the gun.
If the Tories can manage to get the Lib Dems to shoulder all the blame for the Post Office scandal, as they managed with spectacular success during coalition on tuition fees, that really would be this year's electoral black swan.
Blue wall safe for another 5 years.
I think we should wait for the next round of the Inquiry. Although, of course, no current LibDem MP except Davey is involved.
I am sure Davey remembers the true history, and it won’t be on wassap, he’ll be able to point out the official documents and defend himself from those trying to spin it against him.
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
Oh for sure, I’ve no doubt Republicans will be as cynical as all fucketty-bollocks in exploiting the issue. Cf the Texas governor bussing the migrants to NYC and Chicago
However this is a potentially fatal election issue for Biden and yet the Dems don’t seem particularly concerned. They should be
They say that in the City of London, the most expensive sentence is "But this time it's different!"
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
Errr, 60,000 is tiny in the context of 2 million.
That's how numbers work.
You got the country wrong, the method wrong, the trajectory wrong. Other than that, yours was a brilliant remark
Really, I got the trajectory wrong?
Would you like to maybe quote the bit where I got the trajectory wrong. Oh no, you can't. Because I didn't.
You know who did get trajectories wrong?
You with forecasts for small boat arrivals in the UK. Remind me what's happened to numbers this year?
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
Oh for sure, I’ve no doubt Republicans will be as cynical as all fucketty-bollocks in exploiting the issue. Cf the Texas governor bussing the migrants to NYC and Chicago
However this is a potentially fatal election issue for Biden and yet the Dems don’t seem particularly concerned. They should be
I expect some serious efforts to reach a deal with the Congressional Republicans over the next month or so.
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
Well, indeed. By and large, what we have done in this country is make progress on the former. There are, I'm sure, a few cases of the latter and we should seek to avoid that happening, although let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
By and large, I still think being white and male stands me in better stead than not being white or male in most employment situations or when interacting with the state. I say that partly based on my day-to-day experience and partly based on research I've been involved with. I take it you are white and male too? Would you agree with that?
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
When I did my video - released during the Trump era - I specifically pointed to the lack of legal consequences for employers in the US.
ICE raided hundreds of Seven Eleven stores in the US, caught dozens of illegal immigrants, and the consequences for either Southland Corporation (which owns Seven Eleven) or the managers of those stores was zero. The only downside was that they needed to find new workers.
This is a long running issue in the US. Dozens of sectors - hospitality, construction, agriculture - are completely dependent on imported illegal labour. And the people in those sectors are donors.
And so the dance continues. There is massive demand pull for illegal labour. No government since the Bush Sr administration has dared upset their donors by tacking demand. And so they try and stick bandaids on it at the border.
But these are now unprecedented numbers. 300,000 in one month
Why does it perplex you? You and I are lucky enough to have been born here, or anywhere in the first world. If you were born in the third world and ambitious enough you (and I) would be doing the same.
No. The kind of people who spend half their day arguing about politics with randoms on the Internet are far too lazy and unfocused to ever do anything as dangerous and difficult as the small boats crowd are doing.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
The UK government website has a whole section advertising what is on offer for asylum seekers, including people who have been refused asylum.
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
This is the thing. Biden will now, with some justification, try to turn this back on the Republicans by saying, "I've got a bill ready to go, but the GOP is blocking it."
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
Indeed, I agree with all that. Done right then DEI is very sensible.
Just to pick up on one thing in that thread, Looking "where others won't" is quite appropriate, so long as you don't exclusively look where others won't.
"Extending our hiring search to include them" is a bit of a misnomer to me, to me its more about ensuring you're not narrowing your hiring search in the first place. If there's reasons you're not looking somewhere, tackle those reasons and don't narrow to begin with - but still look at everyone equitably, which leads to the E.
Poor policies are policies like quotas, or "all x shortlists" etc that discriminate. That is a terrible idea, that is never under any circumstances that I can think of justified and means you're simply failing to tackle your original problems to begin with if you need those as a sticking plaster.
It's no surprise; they know what a shitshow the EU and they know how amazing Trump is. Can you not blame them for therefore flying to South America to get into the (soon to be Great Again) America?
Joking aside it has been interesting talking to migrants to the US that there is a perception, probably real, that it's just easier to slip into the host economy and make money than it is in, particularly, continental Europe. ID cards may play a part in that, and also the more protected, unionised workforce structures in countries like France and Germany. A union closed shop facilitating a virtual closed border.
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
As a US employer, I can tell you that the system is setup to *encourage* you to hire illegal workers.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
There will be consequences for Joe Biden unless he gets a grip on this
When I did my video - released during the Trump era - I specifically pointed to the lack of legal consequences for employers in the US.
ICE raided hundreds of Seven Eleven stores in the US, caught dozens of illegal immigrants, and the consequences for either Southland Corporation (which owns Seven Eleven) or the managers of those stores was zero. The only downside was that they needed to find new workers.
This is a long running issue in the US. Dozens of sectors - hospitality, construction, agriculture - are completely dependent on imported illegal labour. And the people in those sectors are donors.
And so the dance continues. There is massive demand pull for illegal labour. No government since the Bush Sr administration has dared upset their donors by tacking demand. And so they try and stick bandaids on it at the border.
But these are now unprecedented numbers. 300,000 in one month
Well, we last were at the levels back in 1999, but agreed yes, these are absolutely appalling numbers.
Been watching Mr Bates vs The Post Office, and I’m left wondering about a couple of things, none of which, so far have been covered. If they have, I’m sure I’ll soon be put right! 1) Many sub-post offices are, nowadays, in the hands of businesses. Our local one is, for example, in a branch of McColls. Others are in branches of such companies as WH Smith. Have there been ‘Horizon problems’ in any of them, and if so what happened? 2) Some hundreds of sub-postmasters have, as we know had such problems. Some at least of their branches have been reopened under new management. Were there any problems there, or were the terminals and/or the ‘pin-pad’ replaced?
Re: your #1, is it overly cynical to opine, that the firms you mention & others managing PO branches, have access to legal resources AND old-school-tie/political donor establishment-Westminster connections NOT available to 99.46% of mom-and-pop postmasters?
Tempting of course, but I suspect it’s something to do with the contract, and the fact that all sorts of employees can be sent to work on the Post Office counter.
Are there any statistics available showing how many Post Offices were managed by businesses such as WH Smiths or Mc Colls and how many were managed by individuals? Also how many Post Offices managed by businesses were investigated for shortfalls compared to the number managed by individuals?
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
Well, indeed. By and large, what we have done in this country is make progress on the former. There are, I'm sure, a few cases of the latter and we should seek to avoid that happening, although let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
By and large, I still think being white and male stands me in better stead than not being white or male in most employment situations or when interacting with the state. I say that partly based on my day-to-day experience and partly based on research I've been involved with. I take it you are white and male too? Would you agree with that?
Yes I would, 100%.
Some people take it too far the other way, I recently heard someone in all seriousness say its not possible to be racist against white people (of course it is), but those who take it too far the other way are an extreme minority.
There's still far too much bias in this country against women and minorities. I support all attempts to eradicate that bias, I do not support attempts to "rectify" that bias by introducing new bias to "balance" it out.
I agree with you that we have done well in this country to make progress on the former, and I want to see us make more progress on the former. I think we've made progress predominantly in this country by ensuring we tackle the former properly, rather than taking lazy shortcuts of counter-discrimination "balance" which I regret happens too often in America which remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.
No, wrong. Read the article. The numbers are booming. From about nil to 60,000
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
Errr, 60,000 is tiny in the context of 2 million.
That's how numbers work.
You got the country wrong, the method wrong, the trajectory wrong. Other than that, yours was a brilliant remark
Really, I got the trajectory wrong?
Would you like to maybe quote the bit where I got the trajectory wrong. Oh no, you can't. Because I didn't.
You know who did get trajectories wrong?
You with forecasts for small boat arrivals in the UK. Remind me what's happened to numbers this year?
They say that in the City of London, the most expensive sentence is "But this time it's different!"
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
Talking of which,
1/ They say it doesn’t rain but it pours. For Labour, there’s been a flood of support this week as they increase their lead in the polls by five to 22 points.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4) 🔵 Con 25% (-1) 🟠 LD 9% (-2) ⚪ Ref 10% (-1) 🟢 Green 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
They say that in the City of London, the most expensive sentence is "But this time it's different!"
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
Currently, the thought of another Conservative government shocks, horrifies or appals many voters, including voters who have previously voted Conservative. This is unusual.
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
Well, indeed. By and large, what we have done in this country is make progress on the former. There are, I'm sure, a few cases of the latter and we should seek to avoid that happening, although let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
By and large, I still think being white and male stands me in better stead than not being white or male in most employment situations or when interacting with the state. I say that partly based on my day-to-day experience and partly based on research I've been involved with. I take it you are white and male too? Would you agree with that?
Yes I would, 100%.
Some people take it too far the other way, I recently heard someone in all seriousness say its not possible to be racist against white people (of course it is), but those who take it too far the other way are an extreme minority.
There's still far too much bias in this country against women and minorities. I support all attempts to eradicate that bias, I do not support attempts to "rectify" that bias by introducing new bias to "balance" it out.
I agree with you that we have done well in this country to make progress on the former, and I want to see us make more progress on the former. I think we've made progress predominantly in this country by ensuring we tackle the former properly, rather than taking lazy shortcuts of counter-discrimination "balance" which I regret happens too often in America which remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result.
Great. We are largely in agreement.
On a small point, I don't think "lazy shortcuts" are why the US "remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result." I think US history, slavery, the failures of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Republican shift to white resentment are much bigger factors in why the US remains a terribly racist country today.
They say that in the City of London, the most expensive sentence is "But this time it's different!"
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
Talking of which,
1/ They say it doesn’t rain but it pours. For Labour, there’s been a flood of support this week as they increase their lead in the polls by five to 22 points.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4) 🔵 Con 25% (-1) 🟠 LD 9% (-2) ⚪ Ref 10% (-1) 🟢 Green 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
Well, indeed. By and large, what we have done in this country is make progress on the former. There are, I'm sure, a few cases of the latter and we should seek to avoid that happening, although let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
By and large, I still think being white and male stands me in better stead than not being white or male in most employment situations or when interacting with the state. I say that partly based on my day-to-day experience and partly based on research I've been involved with. I take it you are white and male too? Would you agree with that?
Yes I would, 100%.
Some people take it too far the other way, I recently heard someone in all seriousness say its not possible to be racist against white people (of course it is), but those who take it too far the other way are an extreme minority.
There's still far too much bias in this country against women and minorities. I support all attempts to eradicate that bias, I do not support attempts to "rectify" that bias by introducing new bias to "balance" it out.
I agree with you that we have done well in this country to make progress on the former, and I want to see us make more progress on the former. I think we've made progress predominantly in this country by ensuring we tackle the former properly, rather than taking lazy shortcuts of counter-discrimination "balance" which I regret happens too often in America which remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result.
Great. We are largely in agreement.
On a small point, I don't think "lazy shortcuts" are why the US "remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result." I think US history, slavery, the failures of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Republican shift to white resentment are much bigger factors in why the US remains a terribly racist country today.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think lazy shortcuts are the only reason that the US remains a terribly racist and sexist country, but I think that the US has not put in the hard work required to tackle the legacy of US history etc and that those who try to do so have instead put in lazy shortcuts rather than the harder work of tackling and transforming attitudes.
Its possible to tackle and transform attitudes. Its mostly happened in this country, the overwhelming majority of this country my age or younger (and many older too) are appalled at any discrimination and wouldn't tolerate it as acceptable in the way it is the norm in America and was the norm in the past here.
Similar here too with drink driving. I would never under any circumstances drink and drive, which is the same as most in this country, its completely socially taboo amongst my circle and most of society. In America though, instead of transforming attitudes of drink driving they've had stupid policies like raising the drinking age to 21 and thus encouraging young adults to drink illegally and does nothing to prevent those 21+ from drinking and driving.
America is an interesting country in many ways, but in many ways too often its the country of the lazy shortcut.
They say that in the City of London, the most expensive sentence is "But this time it's different!"
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
Talking of which,
1/ They say it doesn’t rain but it pours. For Labour, there’s been a flood of support this week as they increase their lead in the polls by five to 22 points.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4) 🔵 Con 25% (-1) 🟠 LD 9% (-2) ⚪ Ref 10% (-1) 🟢 Green 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
They say that in the City of London, the most expensive sentence is "But this time it's different!"
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
Talking of which,
1/ They say it doesn’t rain but it pours. For Labour, there’s been a flood of support this week as they increase their lead in the polls by five to 22 points.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4) 🔵 Con 25% (-1) 🟠 LD 9% (-2) ⚪ Ref 10% (-1) 🟢 Green 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
They say that in the City of London, the most expensive sentence is "But this time it's different!"
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
Talking of which,
1/ They say it doesn’t rain but it pours. For Labour, there’s been a flood of support this week as they increase their lead in the polls by five to 22 points.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4) 🔵 Con 25% (-1) 🟠 LD 9% (-2) ⚪ Ref 10% (-1) 🟢 Green 5% (-1) 🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
Well, indeed. By and large, what we have done in this country is make progress on the former. There are, I'm sure, a few cases of the latter and we should seek to avoid that happening, although let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
By and large, I still think being white and male stands me in better stead than not being white or male in most employment situations or when interacting with the state. I say that partly based on my day-to-day experience and partly based on research I've been involved with. I take it you are white and male too? Would you agree with that?
Yes I would, 100%.
Some people take it too far the other way, I recently heard someone in all seriousness say its not possible to be racist against white people (of course it is), but those who take it too far the other way are an extreme minority.
There's still far too much bias in this country against women and minorities. I support all attempts to eradicate that bias, I do not support attempts to "rectify" that bias by introducing new bias to "balance" it out.
I agree with you that we have done well in this country to make progress on the former, and I want to see us make more progress on the former. I think we've made progress predominantly in this country by ensuring we tackle the former properly, rather than taking lazy shortcuts of counter-discrimination "balance" which I regret happens too often in America which remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result.
Great. We are largely in agreement.
On a small point, I don't think "lazy shortcuts" are why the US "remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result." I think US history, slavery, the failures of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Republican shift to white resentment are much bigger factors in why the US remains a terribly racist country today.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think lazy shortcuts are the only reason that the US remains a terribly racist and sexist country, but I think that the US has not put in the hard work required to tackle the legacy of US history etc and that those who try to do so have instead put in lazy shortcuts rather than the harder work of tackling and transforming attitudes.
Its possible to tackle and transform attitudes. Its mostly happened in this country, the overwhelming majority of this country my age or younger (and many older too) are appalled at any discrimination and wouldn't tolerate it as acceptable in the way it is the norm in America and was the norm in the past here.
Similar here too with drink driving. I would never under any circumstances drink and drive, which is the same as most in this country, its completely socially taboo amongst my circle and most of society. In America though, instead of transforming attitudes of drink driving they've had stupid policies like raising the drinking age to 21 and thus encouraging young adults to drink illegally and does nothing to prevent those 21+ from drinking and driving.
America is an interesting country in many ways, but in many ways too often its the country of the lazy shortcut.
I don’t see the evidence that the main approach to tackling racism in the US has been lazy shortcuts.
Lazy shortcuts have come from the Republicans and the likes of Trump, seeking to win votes on white resentment and forever stoking up fears. Part of what they do is pounce on any less well executed anti-racist actions. They also just make stuff up: the MAGA Right have become completely divorced from the truth.
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
Been watching Mr Bates vs The Post Office, and I’m left wondering about a couple of things, none of which, so far have been covered. If they have, I’m sure I’ll soon be put right! 1) Many sub-post offices are, nowadays, in the hands of businesses. Our local one is, for example, in a branch of McColls. Others are in branches of such companies as WH Smith. Have there been ‘Horizon problems’ in any of them, and if so what happened? 2) Some hundreds of sub-postmasters have, as we know had such problems. Some at least of their branches have been reopened under new management. Were there any problems there, or were the terminals and/or the ‘pin-pad’ replaced?
Re: your #1, is it overly cynical to opine, that the firms you mention & others managing PO branches, have access to legal resources AND old-school-tie/political donor establishment-Westminster connections NOT available to 99.46% of mom-and-pop postmasters?
Tempting of course, but I suspect it’s something to do with the contract, and the fact that all sorts of employees can be sent to work on the Post Office counter.
Are there any statistics available showing how many Post Offices were managed by businesses such as WH Smiths or Mc Colls and how many were managed by individuals? Also how many Post Offices managed by businesses were investigated for shortfalls compared to the number managed by individuals?
I would also ask whether the businesses that managed PO's has the same system (version of Horizon) and same systems support arrangement as individual SPMs like Alan Bates and co.
I'd be surprised if WHSmith didn't have a very different set-up from the PO. For a start they (WHS etc) would have wanted to run their POs on a regional basis, and probably got better deals on the financials.
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
White men, and I have extensive experience of being a white man spanning several decades, have had the easier end of the bargain for centuries. A small minority get resentful at any move to redress this situation. Their resentment should not be a bargaining chip. Non-white men and women have had to just put up with the situation for centuries, their resentment counting for little.
Promoting the right person for the job, whether they be male or female, black or white, straight or gay, and treating everyone as the individual they are is redressing the situation.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
Well, indeed. By and large, what we have done in this country is make progress on the former. There are, I'm sure, a few cases of the latter and we should seek to avoid that happening, although let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
By and large, I still think being white and male stands me in better stead than not being white or male in most employment situations or when interacting with the state. I say that partly based on my day-to-day experience and partly based on research I've been involved with. I take it you are white and male too? Would you agree with that?
Yes I would, 100%.
Some people take it too far the other way, I recently heard someone in all seriousness say its not possible to be racist against white people (of course it is), but those who take it too far the other way are an extreme minority.
There's still far too much bias in this country against women and minorities. I support all attempts to eradicate that bias, I do not support attempts to "rectify" that bias by introducing new bias to "balance" it out.
I agree with you that we have done well in this country to make progress on the former, and I want to see us make more progress on the former. I think we've made progress predominantly in this country by ensuring we tackle the former properly, rather than taking lazy shortcuts of counter-discrimination "balance" which I regret happens too often in America which remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result.
Great. We are largely in agreement.
On a small point, I don't think "lazy shortcuts" are why the US "remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result." I think US history, slavery, the failures of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Republican shift to white resentment are much bigger factors in why the US remains a terribly racist country today.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think lazy shortcuts are the only reason that the US remains a terribly racist and sexist country, but I think that the US has not put in the hard work required to tackle the legacy of US history etc and that those who try to do so have instead put in lazy shortcuts rather than the harder work of tackling and transforming attitudes.
Its possible to tackle and transform attitudes. Its mostly happened in this country, the overwhelming majority of this country my age or younger (and many older too) are appalled at any discrimination and wouldn't tolerate it as acceptable in the way it is the norm in America and was the norm in the past here.
Similar here too with drink driving. I would never under any circumstances drink and drive, which is the same as most in this country, its completely socially taboo amongst my circle and most of society. In America though, instead of transforming attitudes of drink driving they've had stupid policies like raising the drinking age to 21 and thus encouraging young adults to drink illegally and does nothing to prevent those 21+ from drinking and driving.
America is an interesting country in many ways, but in many ways too often its the country of the lazy shortcut.
I don’t see the evidence that the main approach to tackling racism in the US has been lazy shortcuts.
Lazy shortcuts have come from the Republicans and the likes of Trump, seeking to win votes on white resentment and forever stoking up fears. Part of what they do is pounce on any less well executed anti-racist actions. They also just make stuff up: the MAGA Right have become completely divorced from the truth.
You're not seeing the woods for the trees then, yes the likes of Trump etc are evil and wrong, but so too are many others who get away with whitewashing their discrimination and refusing to tackle discrimination by putting in flawed "balance" policies as a lazy shortcut then proclaiming how good they are and not doing anything further.
Take policies like "positive discrimination", which is an oxymoron, all discrimination is negative.
American universities for instance are a prime example, they proclaim how good they are and have for many decades until the Supreme Court recently ruled it illegal had policies of "positive discrimination", rather than putting in the much harder work of fixing and abolishing discrimination and treating everyone equitably. Partially because their donors want a system that biases towards them and their progeny.
As a result those universities and American society remains a place which can very heavily discriminate against blacks and other minorities, and poor white people too, while giving "legacy" privileged people the unearned privilege they're accustomed to, while they get away with claiming they're tackling racism when they're not.
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
NOM should be much tighter odds than it is. Boundary changes make tactical voting harder and the economy will be better. The large increase in minimum wage rates will also feed through to those higher up salary scale and isn't getting the same focus as tax cuts.
It's true that many will transfer to higher mortgage payments but by early summer the very worst polls will be behind for Sunak.
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
Chris Skidmore resigns from conservative party and stepping down asap
That’s actually really sad, and sad moment for the Conservatives. 😞
He was at odds over net zero and clearly his seat is disappearing, so he no doubt had little confidence in being in office post GE 24 so by doing this he can carve a new career probably in the climate change lobby
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
PB posts .... always looking for those conservative silver lingings and long shots... you conclusion is not my take away from those historical statistics. 🤷 one of the things that attracts me to political betting is the idea that personal bias is set aside and objective analysis remains. But the more I visit these pages the more I see the same biases as anywhere else repeat in a more academic garb. Sorry.
Apologies for not agreeing with the header, and calling it Trumpy Pants, but I’ve been saying for more than a year, Labour share can decrease, the gap from Lab to Con decrease, but the Conservative share and their hopes not benefit.
The theory is called Dutch Salute - that for the Blue Wall of MPs to collapse in just same way as it has done locally in at least 4 consecutive local elections, then current Libdem share in Westminster is far too low, and between now and the election (probably even between final polls and the result) the libdem share will surge at expense of Labour.
But what this header is clearing implying, late swingback goes from main opposition to government? It’s not proven this is historically exact - the truth all elections have probably had Dutch Salute, where votes have also swung from the main parties to other ones late on.
2024 will be the Daddy of high others/low mains elections - what others come to do on the day and where they get their votes from or lend them will matter much more than historical swingback.
Getting over 50% approval is a huge threshold nowadays. YouGov gives this award to an incredible 10 out of 380 public figures. All are royals, or beatified political figures who are dead and/or far away.
The highest popularity for someone alive and living in the U.K. is… Alan Sugar on 45%.
It's interesting, you see lots of commentary taking Starmer to task for not being overly popular or 'inspiring' compared to previous winners, and it has an element of truth, but fails to take into account that it may just be impossible to do so now. People really don't like politicians in general. That's partly down to once bitten twice shy - you can't rerun the Blair playbook, nor Cameron's ersatz version and be very popular in the former case and alter perceptions of your party in the latter. People don't believe you.
There's also social media, which means message control just isn't possible as once it was. A lot of Starmer's trickier moments have come from him saying something open to interpretation, and enemies frothing over the worst possible one. Both Blair and Cameron had their gaffes and they might have been far more damaging today when they'd be endlessly replayed on people's phone (social media was of course around by 2010 but was still in its infancy as a political tool).
Those who have attracted a bit of a fan-like following have done so by annoying everyone else. Boris engendered some hero worship as Mr Brexit, but put himself and the Tory Party on the current trajectory - a geriatric doom loop. The Corbyn fandom got rather weird at times but was dwarfed in the end by those who found him repellent, ludicrous, or both.
You're simply not going to become fizzing with popularity these days unless you're a real phenomenon of a politician.
Also if you want to know all the Ministers and others involved I did the work for you - and even put it in a header for you. But do you ungrateful bastards read them???
READ OUT THE NAMES (with apologies to Joseph I.C. Clarke, author of "The Fighting Race"
"Read out the names!" and TSE slaps his knee As PBers hoot, hiss, curse and exclaim Until the learned one we call Cyclefree Went down the PO List of Shame.
Politicians, lobbyists, hacks and ITers Labourites, LibDems and Tories galore Crap techies, clueless ministers, complicit lawyers All are there - Cyclefree calls 'em out with a roar!
Then flicking some lint from her power suit Said Cyclefree, "They're all on this shit-list, I see For their most epic fail, to safeguard the Mail. Fujitsu, Vennels and Davey!" "Well curse their fates, I'm sorry for Bates!" Say SeaShantyIrish and (most of?) PB . . .
How many seats are your pals going to win at the next election? Is it zero or will George Galloway whip up the pro-Hamas vote in some other obscurantist district of the country.
My Pals would include Jezza who will win in Islington North.
The Greens who will at least double their number of MPs by gaining Bristol Central and hopefully a couple of others
Hopefully a few more Independents will also gain sufficient votes to deny some of the prominent Genocide lovers like Streeting the opportunity to ape Tory polices on the NHS by flipping their seats.
Leicester could well kick Zionist Labour in the teeth too IMO
I understand Thangam Debbonaire is now confirmed for Bristol Central. If you are calling it a Green win it means Thangam is out of Parliament and out of government.
Corbynism really did turn some people into racist cranks frothing endlessly about 'Zionism' like they're characters in Umberto Eco's The Prague Cemetery.
READ OUT THE NAMES (with apologies to Joseph I.C. Clarke, author of "The Fighting Race")
"Read out the names!" and TSE slaps his knee As PBers hoot, hiss, curse and exclaim Until the learned one we call Cyclefree Reads out the PO List of Shame.
Politicians, lobbyists, hacks and ITers Labourites, LibDems and Tories galore Crap techies, clueless ministers, complicit lawyers All are there - Cyclefree calls 'em out with a roar!
Then flicking some lint from her power suit Said Cyclefree, "They're all on this shit-list, I see For their most epic fail, to safeguard the Mail - Fujitsu, Vennels and Davey!" "Well curse their fates, I'm sorry for Bates!" Say SeaShantyIrish and (most of?) PB . . .
Been watching Mr Bates vs The Post Office, and I’m left wondering about a couple of things, none of which, so far have been covered. If they have, I’m sure I’ll soon be put right! 1) Many sub-post offices are, nowadays, in the hands of businesses. Our local one is, for example, in a branch of McColls. Others are in branches of such companies as WH Smith. Have there been ‘Horizon problems’ in any of them, and if so what happened? 2) Some hundreds of sub-postmasters have, as we know had such problems. Some at least of their branches have been reopened under new management. Were there any problems there, or were the terminals and/or the ‘pin-pad’ replaced?
1, yes, the PO even had problems in some of its own Crown Offices, where each counter clerk has their own personal balance
2, yes, in some cases the problems continued under new management - indeed one of the prominent cases had taken over an SPSO from a previous person who had walked away after the problems emerged, and took over not knowing the history. In other cases equipment was replaced or repaired and the problems ceased.
Piecing together all the anecdotal evidence, many of the problems seem to have arisen from power or connectivity issues occurring as transactions were being entered. Where this was due to a fault in the equipment or wiring, replacement or repair could resolve the matter.
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
On the subject of Gay - and of affirmative action - there was an excellent article in the NY Times a few days ago, which made the rather important point that when promote people for the purposes of diversity and social change, you create a shadow over peoples' heads: were they really promoted on their merits?
The problem is that, while diversity gets you people who are less male, pale etc, it doesn't change the rest of the hiring process. Or what the people doing the hiring want.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
You also risk breeding resentment in the population who happen to be white and male. We often joke about it here - best route to promotion would be to stick a skirt on...
Yes, white males have a really tough time, don't they? After all, they hold hardly any positions of power in the UK economy.
You neglect the fact that while the top people are overwhelmingly white and male it doesnt mean the 98% of people who are white and male dont get their opportunites...for example wwc males do poorest at school yet you use the fact most people in power are white and male to ignore that fact.
READ OUT THE NAMES (with apologies to Joseph I.C. Clarke, author of "The Fighting Race")
"Read out the names!" and TSE slaps his knee As PBers hoot, hiss, curse and exclaim Until the learned one we call Cyclefree Reads out the PO List of Shame.
Politicians, lobbyists, hacks and ITers Labourites, LibDems and Tories galore Crap techies, clueless ministers, complicit lawyers All are there - Cyclefree calls 'em out with a roar!
Then flicking some lint from her power suit Said Cyclefree, "They're all on this shit-list, I see For their most epic fail, to safeguard the Mail - Fujitsu, Vennels and Davey!" "Well curse their fates, I'm sorry for Bates!" Say SeaShantyIrish and (most of?) PB . . .
Maybe we should legalise the good stuff like you’ve done in your part of the world. 😏
Comments
Here you are - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/what-are-ministers-for/. Again.
Simply, they're cheaper and you don't need to pay for their medical insurance. Unlike in the UK, there is pretty much no legal consequence for a business in hiring undocumented migrants.
For the first chart in your history lesson, where are they getting the poll leads data? From just one firm, or from an average from a select of firms?
With swingometers in our mind we would assume what they calling 2010 Swingback is from Cameron to Brown? off the top of my head the true history was that didn’t happen to that degree, more likely libdems eating into Cameron’s votes in election run up. In 2010 there Could have been swing from Tories to all other parties as election drew near, on basis don’t trust Tories with NHS etc. but that was just the same as the anti Tory tactical vote in the three elections which proceeded it.
Even in these tables to sell a particular point of view, it’s not always main opposition to government swingback is it?
Which makes me argue, in 2024, what are we calling “Swingback in line with history?” From who to who? For there is no clear history there in the first place.
In fact our evidence from run up to this current election proves how ropey “historical swingback” argument is. Are we seeing any From Labour to Conservative swing yet? over the last few months, the trend of Lab to Con is not happening, the only clear swinging over recent months has been Conservative votes to Reform.
And they fly to Nicaragua (not Colombia) where they are just waved on north
2m “asylum seekers” are in America waiting for their cases to be heard
“Nearly 2.5 million migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2023 fiscal year, and about 300,000 migrants were processed by the U.S. Border Patrol in December, the most of any month, stretching resources to the limit. Most people will apply for asylum, which allows them to remain in the United States until the outcome of their cases, issued years down the road.”
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get
What you'll get
You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker.
Housing
You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
That's how numbers work.
Replacing one form of malign discrimination with another form of malign discrimination is not.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/maga-republican-refuses-to-back-border-bill-because-it-could-help-bidens-poll-numbers
Fed of course by sustained, indeed insatiable demands of American economy for more and more and more labor.
Aside from hiccups due tor depression and war resulting in mass immigration throughout American history. With period from 1920s - 1940s being main exception.
Which by coincidence - or rather NOT - was same era of mass internal migration by Blacks out of the South to Northeast, Midwest and West.
That's comparable to America's Defence Budget as a percentage of GDP.
“Plus you can fly home for Christmas from Luton airport”
There's a good thread on DEI policy here.
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1742690628465484204
ICE raided hundreds of Seven Eleven stores in the US, caught dozens of illegal immigrants, and the consequences for either Southland Corporation (which owns Seven Eleven) or the managers of those stores was zero. The only downside was that they needed to find new workers.
This is a long running issue in the US. Dozens of sectors - hospitality, construction, agriculture - are completely dependent on imported illegal labour. And the people in those sectors are donors.
And so the dance continues. There is massive demand pull for illegal labour. No government since the Bush Sr administration has dared upset their donors by tacking demand. And so they try and stick bandaids on it at the border.
However this is a potentially fatal election issue for Biden and yet the Dems don’t seem particularly concerned. They should be
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to say it anyway - this time, it's different. The opinion polls of today are reflecting the disgust and contempt in which generally small "c" conservatives now hold this government. Add to that the fired-up enthusiasm of committed Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Nationalist voters, and polling day, whenever it comes, is going to see the Conservative Party get beaten like a, well, like whatever we are allowed to compare it with these days.
It's going to be a shellacking for the Tories. I won't be voting Labour (I'm in a Lib Dem/Tory Marginal) but the thought of a Labour government doesn't shock, horrify or appal me. And it doesn't most people. Starmer may be boring, but that's a good thing in the current political climate.
So, with all respect to TSE, I don't think the recent polling history is going to be particularly relevant. You are looking at a barometer when you should be calibrating a seismograph.
Would you like to maybe quote the bit where I got the trajectory wrong. Oh no, you can't. Because I didn't.
You know who did get trajectories wrong?
You with forecasts for small boat arrivals in the UK. Remind me what's happened to numbers this year?
Very good.
"Your wife was one of 9 board members for a conservative political group that helped lead the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement, a movement which culminated in the Jan 6 attack.."
https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1743284776042111343
By and large, I still think being white and male stands me in better stead than not being white or male in most employment situations or when interacting with the state. I say that partly based on my day-to-day experience and partly based on research I've been involved with. I take it you are white and male too? Would you agree with that?
Just to pick up on one thing in that thread, Looking "where others won't" is quite appropriate, so long as you don't exclusively look where others won't.
"Extending our hiring search to include them" is a bit of a misnomer to me, to me its more about ensuring you're not narrowing your hiring search in the first place. If there's reasons you're not looking somewhere, tackle those reasons and don't narrow to begin with - but still look at everyone equitably, which leads to the E.
Poor policies are policies like quotas, or "all x shortlists" etc that discriminate. That is a terrible idea, that is never under any circumstances that I can think of justified and means you're simply failing to tackle your original problems to begin with if you need those as a sticking plaster.
Some people take it too far the other way, I recently heard someone in all seriousness say its not possible to be racist against white people (of course it is), but those who take it too far the other way are an extreme minority.
There's still far too much bias in this country against women and minorities. I support all attempts to eradicate that bias, I do not support attempts to "rectify" that bias by introducing new bias to "balance" it out.
I agree with you that we have done well in this country to make progress on the former, and I want to see us make more progress on the former. I think we've made progress predominantly in this country by ensuring we tackle the former properly, rather than taking lazy shortcuts of counter-discrimination "balance" which I regret happens too often in America which remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result.
1/ They say it doesn’t rain but it pours. For Labour, there’s been a flood of support this week as they increase their lead in the polls by five to 22 points.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4)
🔵 Con 25% (-1)
🟠 LD 9% (-2)
⚪ Ref 10% (-1)
🟢 Green 5% (-1)
🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
https://twitter.com/wethinkpolling/status/1743286769598996790
Besides, if Sunak does as well as Wilson in late '69/early '70, he still loses, especially when you factor in Scotland and tactical tightening.
The 2024 election is a future event, so anything can happen. It's just that most outcomes are very unlikely.
On a small point, I don't think "lazy shortcuts" are why the US "remains a terribly racist and sexist country as a result." I think US history, slavery, the failures of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Republican shift to white resentment are much bigger factors in why the US remains a terribly racist country today.
I know I shouldn’t take pleasure in their misfortune, because it’s rather unchristian, but lol
Its possible to tackle and transform attitudes. Its mostly happened in this country, the overwhelming majority of this country my age or younger (and many older too) are appalled at any discrimination and wouldn't tolerate it as acceptable in the way it is the norm in America and was the norm in the past here.
Similar here too with drink driving. I would never under any circumstances drink and drive, which is the same as most in this country, its completely socially taboo amongst my circle and most of society. In America though, instead of transforming attitudes of drink driving they've had stupid policies like raising the drinking age to 21 and thus encouraging young adults to drink illegally and does nothing to prevent those 21+ from drinking and driving.
America is an interesting country in many ways, but in many ways too often its the country of the lazy shortcut.
1. The smallest Labour lead with a BPC registered pollster in Q1 2024?
Should've opted for 22% maybe?
https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/public-figures/all
Lazy shortcuts have come from the Republicans and the likes of Trump, seeking to win votes on white resentment and forever stoking up fears. Part of what they do is pounce on any less well executed anti-racist actions. They also just make stuff up: the MAGA Right have become completely divorced from the truth.
I'd be surprised if WHSmith didn't have a very different set-up from the PO. For a start they (WHS etc) would have wanted to run their POs on a regional basis, and probably got better deals on the financials.
https://x.com/blewettsam/status/1743327342624149701?s=46
This time a resignation on a policy matter, rather than someone being naughty.
Take policies like "positive discrimination", which is an oxymoron, all discrimination is negative.
American universities for instance are a prime example, they proclaim how good they are and have for many decades until the Supreme Court recently ruled it illegal had policies of "positive discrimination", rather than putting in the much harder work of fixing and abolishing discrimination and treating everyone equitably. Partially because their donors want a system that biases towards them and their progeny.
As a result those universities and American society remains a place which can very heavily discriminate against blacks and other minorities, and poor white people too, while giving "legacy" privileged people the unearned privilege they're accustomed to, while they get away with claiming they're tackling racism when they're not.
Suggests the monarchy is set fair for a while yet
It's true that many will transfer to higher mortgage payments but by early summer the very worst polls will be behind for Sunak.
NEW THREAD
Is it just a statement, in some regions, to affirm a working class background?
Apologies for not agreeing with the header, and calling it Trumpy Pants, but I’ve been saying for more than a year, Labour share can decrease, the gap from Lab to Con decrease, but the Conservative share and their hopes not benefit.
The theory is called Dutch Salute - that for the Blue Wall of MPs to collapse in just same way as it has done locally in at least 4 consecutive local elections, then current Libdem share in Westminster is far too low, and between now and the election (probably even between final polls and the result) the libdem share will surge at expense of Labour.
But what this header is clearing implying, late swingback goes from main opposition to government? It’s not proven this is historically exact - the truth all elections have probably had Dutch Salute, where votes have also swung from the main parties to other ones late on.
2024 will be the Daddy of high others/low mains elections - what others come to do on the day and where they get their votes from or lend them will matter much more than historical swingback.
There's also social media, which means message control just isn't possible as once it was. A lot of Starmer's trickier moments have come from him saying something open to interpretation, and enemies frothing over the worst possible one. Both Blair and Cameron had their gaffes and they might have been far more damaging today when they'd be endlessly replayed on people's phone (social media was of course around by 2010 but was still in its infancy as a political tool).
Those who have attracted a bit of a fan-like following have done so by annoying everyone else. Boris engendered some hero worship as Mr Brexit, but put himself and the Tory Party on the current trajectory - a geriatric doom loop. The Corbyn fandom got rather weird at times but was dwarfed in the end by those who found him repellent, ludicrous, or both.
You're simply not going to become fizzing with popularity these days unless you're a real phenomenon of a politician.
(with apologies to Joseph I.C. Clarke, author of "The Fighting Race"
"Read out the names!" and TSE slaps his knee
As PBers hoot, hiss, curse and exclaim
Until the learned one we call Cyclefree
Went down the PO List of Shame.
Politicians, lobbyists, hacks and ITers
Labourites, LibDems and Tories galore
Crap techies, clueless ministers, complicit lawyers
All are there - Cyclefree calls 'em out with a roar!
Then flicking some lint from her power suit
Said Cyclefree, "They're all on this shit-list, I see
For their most epic fail, to safeguard the Mail.
Fujitsu, Vennels and Davey!"
"Well curse their fates, I'm sorry for Bates!"
Say SeaShantyIrish and (most of?) PB . . .
(with apologies to Joseph I.C. Clarke, author of "The Fighting Race")
"Read out the names!" and TSE slaps his knee
As PBers hoot, hiss, curse and exclaim
Until the learned one we call Cyclefree
Reads out the PO List of Shame.
Politicians, lobbyists, hacks and ITers
Labourites, LibDems and Tories galore
Crap techies, clueless ministers, complicit lawyers
All are there - Cyclefree calls 'em out with a roar!
Then flicking some lint from her power suit
Said Cyclefree, "They're all on this shit-list, I see
For their most epic fail, to safeguard the Mail -
Fujitsu, Vennels and Davey!"
"Well curse their fates, I'm sorry for Bates!"
Say SeaShantyIrish and (most of?) PB . . .
2, yes, in some cases the problems continued under new management - indeed one of the prominent cases had taken over an SPSO from a previous person who had walked away after the problems emerged, and took over not knowing the history. In other cases equipment was replaced or repaired and the problems ceased.
Piecing together all the anecdotal evidence, many of the problems seem to have arisen from power or connectivity issues occurring as transactions were being entered. Where this was due to a fault in the equipment or wiring, replacement or repair could resolve the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/@DrGeoffLindsey