On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke Smith have resigned
Just rejoice at that news.
We can rejoice when these nutty extremist Tories aren’t trying to make our entire national government sing to their tune, but (those few of them that will be left) are sat at the back of the opposition benches and either derided or ignored. Not long to wait, now.
…snip…
But the truly terrifying thing is that there is a small but not negligible chance that enough black swans happen (Starmer being discredited through some sort of dark web sting; UKR turning really ugly and Russia threatening us directly; US-Iran war etc) that this bunch of crooks sneak back in at the GE and we have five more years of this nonsense .
The next GE is not a done deal, and let’s not count our chickens until they are well and truly roosting post election.
Totally agree, everyone speaks as if the election is done and dusted.Corbyn bequeathed a mountain for Starmer to climb, he is only half way up I reckon
Even if I were a Tory, I would find the logic of Anderson, Jenrick, Braverman and all their mates utterly bizarre. They seem to think that if:
a) we get some flights off to Rwanda, then that will lead to: b) the boats being stopped; and that will lead to: c) the Tories winning the 2024 GE as voters express their gratitude.
By my reckoning, even if a) happened (unlikely), then that's unlikely to lead to b) happening. But let's suspend disbelief and imagine they're triumphant and both a) and b) happen this year. Do they seriously believe that this is the main issue above all that would lead to c), and voters would just ignore every other grievance they have about the government?
I find the whole thing completely baffling.
It’s not supposed to work.
It’s supposed to attract the attention of people who aren’t much thinking about it.
Even if I were a Tory, I would find the logic of Anderson, Jenrick, Braverman and all their mates utterly bizarre. They seem to think that if:
a) we get some flights off to Rwanda, then that will lead to: b) the boats being stopped; and that will lead to: c) the Tories winning the 2024 GE as voters express their gratitude.
By my reckoning, even if a) happened (unlikely), then that's unlikely to lead to b) happening. But let's suspend disbelief and imagine they're triumphant and both a) and b) happen this year. Do they seriously believe that this is the main issue above all that would lead to c), and voters would just ignore every other grievance they have about the government?
I find the whole thing completely baffling.
Never underestimate the power of groupthink in a bunker. (And yes, Europhiles were guilty of that as well.)
Besides, what else can they do? Say "OK lads, a joke's a joke, but we need to let the Rwanda plan die in the snow"?
Rishi has ignored two opportunities to cut the scam loose (his first day and the Supreme Court judgement). It's too late for him to do anything but keep going with it.
I am now convinced that the Tory Party is going to lurch to the right following on from defeat. If it’s a particularly bad defeat, it is potentially going to go full GOPUK, and probably cannibalise (or be cannibalised by) Reform. It might not even survive as the Tories.
We could be in line for a huge realignment.
That's why I think Keir will get a decade. The Tories seem to have spent a decade watching Labour lose and have decided they want at it.
Doubt it. The Tories are sabotaging the state too thoroughly, and are already blaming SKS. Like the Germans on the retreat to the Siegfriedstellung aka Hindenburg Line. Was shit for the folk living in the area, mind. Destruction of town halls, destruction of transport infrastructure, damage of water supply and drainage, removal of all cash and assets ...
Would that not be classed as Treason? HMG v the Conservative Party?
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
Maybe the queue to take up the job of Post Office CEO in 2019 wasn’t that long. With only the prospect of an unjustified CBE (and a few £million) by way of inducement.
Anyhow, look on the bright side, today the CEO committed to replace Horizon with a brand new IT system for subpostoffices. That will surely work out just fine.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
Have they charged the correct standing charges and usage? Months don't really matter.
You don't understand. They've taken the credit balance at the start of December, after November's usage had been taken off, and then included November's usage again to this bill and deducted that from the credit balance in December.
It's not about the rate they're charging. They've charged me twice.
Last week I paid an electricity bill of £1.30. I've no idea why it was so low. Perhaps there's a government subsidy or maybe I paid twice the last time or possibly they overcharged at some point. I just pay whatever bill they send and trust them to sort out any anomalies in their own good time.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
"Jan 16 (Reuters) - Iran destroyed two bases of Baluchi militant group Jaish al Adl in Pakistan by launching missiles on Tuesday, Iranian state media reported."
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
The evidence so far is that this isn't going to happen. Let's assume that 'far right' means something consistent with multi party democracy, capacity to lose etc, so we aren't talking about Trump or totalitarians or authoritarians; nor are we talking about the populism which suggests simple answers to complex problems.
Within those constraints, what are the big ideas swirling around in radical conservative circles, costed (so not Trussism), thought out, deliverable, which are so different from the generality of the Overton Window. If they were around, would we not be talking about them?
The basic issue, is that they've tried them and they've failed because they don't work or the consequences are very unpopular, even if a headline policy is not.
After Brexit we've had May, Boris, Truss, and now Sunak. All have in their own ways tried to pursue the contradictory things their party's right wants and believes was 'promised' voters who still want it in 2016. All have failed (with the possible exception of Boris - whose personal flaws did for him) or are failing because of the need to compromise with reality rather than indulge fantasies.
If they carry on down that path, then it wouldn't take a particularly successful Labour government - merely one that sorted out some of its lower-hanging fruit - to be able to run a compelling 'stick with us, you don't want those lunatics back in causing chaos again like last time' campaign.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
Have they charged the correct standing charges and usage? Months don't really matter.
You don't understand. They've taken the credit balance at the start of December, after November's usage had been taken off, and then included November's usage again to this bill and deducted that from the credit balance in December.
It's not about the rate they're charging. They've charged me twice.
Last week I paid an electricity bill of £1.30. I've no idea why it was so low. Perhaps there's a government subsidy or maybe I paid twice the last time or possibly they overcharged at some point. I just pay whatever bill they send and trust them to sort out any anomalies in their own good time.
Which is what many SPMs thought about Horizon.
You really should check. Especially if you have the misfortune to be with British Gas - next month they'll probably direct debit a £1,000 out of your account without proper warning.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
The evidence so far is that this isn't going to happen. Let's assume that 'far right' means something consistent with multi party democracy, capacity to lose etc, so we aren't talking about Trump or totalitarians or authoritarians; nor are we talking about the populism which suggests simple answers to complex problems.
Within those constraints, what are the big ideas swirling around in radical conservative circles, costed (so not Trussism), thought out, deliverable, which are so different from the generality of the Overton Window. If they were around, would we not be talking about them?
The era we live in is quite chaotic, the overton window can shift and 'unthinkable' ideas come in to play, similar to how the statism of the Johnson era contrasted with decades of neoliberalism. The Rwanda idea is fairly mainstream in Europe after Britain being an outlier for a while.
If you think that things have to change then unthinkable solutions come in to play. It is like in Germany where politicians claiming 'we can do this' in 2015 (bringing in millions of refugees) are replaced in 2024 by politicians promising to deport millions of refugees.
What I can say for sure is politicians are so entrenched in ideology that they have become out of touch with real life outside the demands of their activist base. IE Councils devoting resources to being a 'Borough of sanctuary' for asylum seekers, providing immigrants with housing etc, when they themselves have massive waiting lists and people at their wits end with no housing, teenage single mothers being housed 200 miles away from family etc. Things like this get corrected in the fullness of time.
Whilst I get what you mean and largely agree that the bit in bold is councils stretching beyond what residents are likely to put up with for long, I’d suggest it actually shows a decent grasp of the real world, just that it’s the real world beyond these shores/Europe.
I think this is quite subjective really. I think I am the only poster on PB to have been critical about the policy towards granting asylum for Ukrainian refugees. This may in the long run turn out to be a form of enabling genocide - the same reason I recall you cited recently as to why middle eastern countries don't take in refugees from Gaza.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
I meant at the start of each year (had they known there’d be an Election)
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
The issue is a strategic one.
Appealing to disgruntled pro-Brexit northerners was a short-term, tactical fix, which got the clown over the line against an opponent who was widely feared. But it was a strategic blind alley, except in the circumstance that the government could, within its five years, demonstrate significant investment benefits to the North. Which it has barely tried to do, let alone actually delivered. Indeed it is now openly advertising that it is repairing potholes in London using money originally intended for the north.
Otherwise, the Tories are trading the support of their educated long-term southern supporters for the transitory, fickle support of formerly red wall Labour voters who have got nothing back from their gamble.
The Tories need a long, hard think about what is their purpose in the contemporary political environment.
The only question in town is whether they can embark on this serious rethink right away, or have to go through some sort of HY-inspired denial of reality before they make a start.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
2019 definitely looked like Con maj
That apart, he is actually right about the others though.
It’s one of the reasons I’m expecting Labour to fall short this time. The task and situation is roughly comparable toCameron’s.
The possible joker is tactical voting but I don’t think it’s likely on the scale we saw from 1997-2005.
The latest desperate gamble from the Tories, assuming that Brits living abroad are still enjoying their all-day breakfasts and reminiscing about Mrs T, and haven’t noticed Brexit meanwhile.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
Even if they promise to build a million houses a year through the total deregulation of the planning system?
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
2019 definitely looked like Con maj
That apart, he is actually right about the others though.
It’s one of the reasons I’m expecting Labour to fall short this time. The task and situation is roughly comparable toCameron’s.
The possible joker is tactical voting but I don’t think it’s likely on the scale we saw from 1997-2005.
Yes, and I meant if people were asked at the start of the year in a competition like BenPointer’s. In Jan 2019 I don’t think Con Maj was fav
The polls were pretty even in Dec 2018. Corbynites were demanding an election
The thing I find interesting about parliamentary votes is it seems to be generally presumed that those voting for the government don't really mean it in some fashion. Like a rebellion is seen as a sign of the more popular option if it gets big enough, even if actually outnumbered by several times by those who opposed it, as the latter are assumed to do it just out of loyalty to the leadership.
Which to be sure must happen to some degree, but is hard to judge. A similar thing is when the government is defeated by, say, an opposition amendment or some such, it's usually described as parliament asserting its authority, but the exact same thing would be true if parliament, as it usually does when there's a majority, backs the government.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
Even if they promise to build a million houses a year through the total deregulation of the planning system?
Sadly - since demolishing the planning system would be a further centralisation and denial of power from local government, when our country so desperately needs the opposite approach - I strongly expect Labour to be far more willing to ride roughshod over meaningful local democracy than are the Tories.
The left is always about ends rather than means, and my lifetime experience of Labour politicians is that interest in the means doesn’t outlive their time in opposition.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
I meant at the start of each year (had they known there’d be an Election)
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
I see your stiff Sir Keir and raise you a Wishy-washy Sunak
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
Read's testimony at the Select Committee was pathetic. Absolute unflinching self confidence yet unable to answer a question. An absolute dog ate my homework performance.
They don’t need to do anything. They have clearly won. They have the numbers, and the government either has to be sure it has peeled enough away - impossible with that amount of rebels, facing them down will be like playing Russian Roulette ie too risky - postpone 3rd reading to soften up the rebel power, with political senna pods or something, or give the rebels the meat they are asking for.
I’m 99% certain it’s the third of those, government concedes. That’s why the wets are every bit as angry as the rebels are smug this evening - government will concede the hardened bill to the rebels, and the wets have absolutely no choice but to vote it through, or be the ones to cut their own Primeministers balls off at start of election year.
The right wing rebels have clearly won this one over the wets, simply on the basis of coming together and uniting, when all over Christmas and right up to this evening, just about no one thought they could or would.
The next headbangers v wets face off with be for crowning leader of the opposition - and all the right need to do is get a candidate into the final 2. So we can place our money on them winning that too, considering the MPs returned after election loss they might even place two right wing candidates in final 2.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
I meant at the start of each year (had they known there’d be an Election)
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
I see your stiff Sir Keir and raise you a Wishy-washy Sunak
Yes, an uninspiring pair.
Sir Keir’s plans actually probably would enthuse me if I didn’t completely distrust & dislike him. Govt being there to serve us, hardworking no frills public servants etc. I remember voting for Brown and thinking he’d be better than Cameron despite being less stylish and more dour. I still feel like a more natural Labour voter, and don’t like posh boy entitlement or cronyism. but his pious tone, lies & insincerity makes it a no-no this time
The thing I find interesting about parliamentary votes is it seems to be generally presumed that those voting for the government don't really mean it in some fashion. Like a rebellion is seen as a sign of the more popular option if it gets big enough, even if actually outnumbered by several times by those who opposed it, as the latter are assumed to do it just out of loyalty to the leadership.
Which to be sure must happen to some degree, but is hard to judge. A similar thing is when the government is defeated by, say, an opposition amendment or some such, it's usually described as parliament asserting its authority, but the exact same thing would be true if parliament, as it usually does when there's a majority, backs the government.
I find it odd (though unsurprising given their complete lack of backbone) there's just nothing from the supposed Tory centre. OK, those with ambitions have a reason to be loyal. But surely any moderate Tory who has basically given up on their seat, either as want to call it a day at the end of a cycle, or as they believe they are screwed, could fluff their reputation outside parliament by giving a speech calling a turd of a bill and idea, exactly that, and voting accordingly.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
Have they charged the correct standing charges and usage? Months don't really matter.
You don't understand. They've taken the credit balance at the start of December, after November's usage had been taken off, and then included November's usage again to this bill and deducted that from the credit balance in December.
It's not about the rate they're charging. They've charged me twice.
Last week I paid an electricity bill of £1.30. I've no idea why it was so low. Perhaps there's a government subsidy or maybe I paid twice the last time or possibly they overcharged at some point. I just pay whatever bill they send and trust them to sort out any anomalies in their own good time.
Which is what many SPMs thought about Horizon.
Eek. I never assume a utility bill is correct. I find lots of errors. The compensation can be quite profitable. I reckon I make more money out of BT than they charge me in the long run as they cock up so many times. Having said that it could be time spent doing something more interesting. It is sport for me.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
The evidence so far is that this isn't going to happen. Let's assume that 'far right' means something consistent with multi party democracy, capacity to lose etc, so we aren't talking about Trump or totalitarians or authoritarians; nor are we talking about the populism which suggests simple answers to complex problems.
Within those constraints, what are the big ideas swirling around in radical conservative circles, costed (so not Trussism), thought out, deliverable, which are so different from the generality of the Overton Window. If they were around, would we not be talking about them?
The era we live in is quite chaotic, the overton window can shift and 'unthinkable' ideas come in to play, similar to how the statism of the Johnson era contrasted with decades of neoliberalism. The Rwanda idea is fairly mainstream in Europe after Britain being an outlier for a while.
If you think that things have to change then unthinkable solutions come in to play. It is like in Germany where politicians claiming 'we can do this' in 2015 (bringing in millions of refugees) are replaced in 2024 by politicians promising to deport millions of refugees.
What I can say for sure is politicians are so entrenched in ideology that they have become out of touch with real life outside the demands of their activist base. IE Councils devoting resources to being a 'Borough of sanctuary' for asylum seekers, providing immigrants with housing etc, when they themselves have massive waiting lists and people at their wits end with no housing, teenage single mothers being housed 200 miles away from family etc. Things like this get corrected in the fullness of time.
Thanks. I think it's fair to ask again:What are the big ideas. You indicate a few: The Rwanda style deal; mass deportations of millions; reform of the social housing waiting lists.
Of these the Rwanda deal is a non starter in terms of real effectiveness - even if it could be implemented which it can't. Mass deportations of millions is on no sane agenda I have come across. Any Tory MPs mentioned it? Or Farage? Or Lozza? Reform of social housing, which is the best runner of the three, involved a marginally better way of dealing with a problem insoluble without investment of mega billions we haven't got.
Looking at the extreme agenda in the UK, I notice this from Reclaim's manifesto (ie Lozza's lot). They would get rid of illegal immigration by allowing asylum applications from your own or third countries.
Simple when you know how. I think they hope no-one spots the flaw.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
Even if they promise to build a million houses a year through the total deregulation of the planning system?
Yes.
That to me is a number one regular political issue, but some things like standing up to the far right are deal-breakers that are more important than regular politics.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
I am not offended your the suggestion I am 'far right' but I don't agree. I would say I am just open minded politically. The problem for the tories is that, if they try and go centrist/woke, they lose votes to Reform. Where do they pick up replacement votes from? It is a crowded field already and they have trashed their reputation as a centrist party. If the labour government are a disaster, then the political situation changes.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
Have they charged the correct standing charges and usage? Months don't really matter.
You don't understand. They've taken the credit balance at the start of December, after November's usage had been taken off, and then included November's usage again to this bill and deducted that from the credit balance in December.
It's not about the rate they're charging. They've charged me twice.
Last week I paid an electricity bill of £1.30. I've no idea why it was so low. Perhaps there's a government subsidy or maybe I paid twice the last time or possibly they overcharged at some point. I just pay whatever bill they send and trust them to sort out any anomalies in their own good time.
Which is what many SPMs thought about Horizon.
You really should check. Especially if you have the misfortune to be with British Gas - next month they'll probably direct debit a £1,000 out of your account without proper warning.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
I meant at the start of each year (had they known there’d be an Election)
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
I see your stiff Sir Keir and raise you a Wishy-washy Sunak
Yes, an uninspiring pair.
Sir Keir’s plans actually probably would enthuse me if I didn’t completely distrust & dislike him. Govt being there to serve us, hardworking no frills public servants etc. I remember voting for Brown and thinking he’d be better than Cameron despite being less stylish and more dour. I still feel like a more natural Labour voter, and don’t like posh boy entitlement or cronyism. but his pious tone, lies & insincerity makes it a no-no this time
How come you highly rate that entitled crony, the disgraced former Prime Minister Alexander Johnson?
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
Even if they promise to build a million houses a year through the total deregulation of the planning system?
It would be nice if they promised that (radical right crap aside), but you do know who the Tory membership are, right? It's about as likely as Labour announcing an extra tax on NHS workers.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
I meant at the start of each year (had they known there’d be an Election)
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
I see your stiff Sir Keir and raise you a Wishy-washy Sunak
Yes, an uninspiring pair.
Sir Keir’s plans actually probably would enthuse me if I didn’t completely distrust & dislike him. Govt being there to serve us, hardworking no frills public servants etc. I remember voting for Brown and thinking he’d be better than Cameron despite being less stylish and more dour. I still feel like a more natural Labour voter, and don’t like posh boy entitlement or cronyism. but his pious tone, lies & insincerity makes it a no-no this time
How come you highly rate that entitled crony, the disgraced former Prime Minister Alexander Johnson?
I voted for him, along with many other non Tories, because he was the only one not trying to get the referendum result changed. He talked a good talk about levelling up, and didn’t rule like a Right Winger. But, as I said to you last week, if Corbyn had been promising to get Brexit Done, & Boris had been agitating for a second referendum, I’d have voted for Jezza, and he’d probably have been PM
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
Even if they promise to build a million houses a year through the total deregulation of the planning system?
Promising something in politics to get attention is one thing, convincing people you can actually deliver promises in order to turn attention into enough votes, that’s another thing altogether. It’s the basis of why both Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trumps political careers are over.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke Smith have resigned
Just rejoice at that news.
We can rejoice when these nutty extremist Tories aren’t trying to make our entire national government sing to their tune, but (those few of them that will be left) are sat at the back of the opposition benches and either derided or ignored. Not long to wait, now.
Meanwhile, from today’s BIS SC hearing on the Post Office scandal, welcome news that Fujitsu accepts that it will have to cough up some £££, and shocking news that there is a subpostmaster who was imprisoned who has only just made contact with the campaign, following the TV drama.
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
Read's testimony at the Select Committee was pathetic. Absolute unflinching self confidence yet unable to answer a question. An absolute dog ate my homework performance.
And yet he takes home ca. half a million a year. He's barely capable of restocking the shelves in an all-night supermarket.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Yes, he only got just over 50% of the vote so if it narrows to one challenger in time it could be closer
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
I meant at the start of each year (had they known there’d be an Election)
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
I see your stiff Sir Keir and raise you a Wishy-washy Sunak
Yes, an uninspiring pair.
Sir Keir’s plans actually probably would enthuse me if I didn’t completely distrust & dislike him. Govt being there to serve us, hardworking no frills public servants etc. I remember voting for Brown and thinking he’d be better than Cameron despite being less stylish and more dour. I still feel like a more natural Labour voter, and don’t like posh boy entitlement or cronyism. but his pious tone, lies & insincerity makes it a no-no this time
How come you highly rate that entitled crony, the disgraced former Prime Minister Alexander Johnson?
I voted for him, along with many other non Tories, because he was the only one not trying to get the referendum result changed. He talked a good talk about levelling up, and didn’t rule like a Right Winger. But, as I said to you last week, if Corbyn had been promising to get Brexit Done, & Boris had been agitating for a second referendum, I’d have voted for Jezza, and he’d probably have been PM
That was then, but this is now, and Johnson has proven to be everything and more besides, that you despise about Starmer.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Interesting. Trump did however get more votes overall than in the 2016 Iowa caucus (56k this time versus 45k in 2016), despite turnout being down from 187k to 110k (due to the weather or disillusion?)
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Informing ICO will just swap talking to one bunch of wasters with another.
On topic: 86.6% of PB 'Predictors' expect a Labour majority.
Are we more, or less, informed? More, or less, prone to hopecasting?
We'll never know.
I’d say in 2010 that % would have predicted Con Maj In 2015 they’d have said NOM In 2016 they’d have said Remain In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj & in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It's all speculation and half-remembered stuff of course but:
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB 2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75% 2016 - Probably right 2017 - Agreed 2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
I meant at the start of each year (had they known there’d be an Election)
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
I see your stiff Sir Keir and raise you a Wishy-washy Sunak
Yes, an uninspiring pair.
Sir Keir’s plans actually probably would enthuse me if I didn’t completely distrust & dislike him. Govt being there to serve us, hardworking no frills public servants etc. I remember voting for Brown and thinking he’d be better than Cameron despite being less stylish and more dour. I still feel like a more natural Labour voter, and don’t like posh boy entitlement or cronyism. but his pious tone, lies & insincerity makes it a no-no this time
How come you highly rate that entitled crony, the disgraced former Prime Minister Alexander Johnson?
I voted for him, along with many other non Tories, because he was the only one not trying to get the referendum result changed. He talked a good talk about levelling up, and didn’t rule like a Right Winger. But, as I said to you last week, if Corbyn had been promising to get Brexit Done, & Boris had been agitating for a second referendum, I’d have voted for Jezza, and he’d probably have been PM
That was then, but this is now, and Johnson has proven to be everything and more besides, that you despise about Starmer.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
That sounds a bit like wishcasting to me Darkage (not a criticism, I do it myself).
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
If the Tories march to the far right then they may gain 10% but they may lose 20% too.
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
Even if they promise to build a million houses a year through the total deregulation of the planning system?
It would be nice if they promised that (radical right crap aside), but you do know who the Tory membership are, right? It's about as likely as Labour announcing an extra tax on NHS workers.
I made this point earlier. The demands of its voting base are a problem. But it won't stop the tories trying to triangulate in some way.
Perhaps the answer will ultimately come in the form of a political insurgency rather than the Conservative Party.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
You can use the energy ombudsman, but only if BG haven't resolved it after 8 weeks.
I warned that the government taking shortcuts would not be painless. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/16/sue-carr-lady-chief-justice-sunak-judiciary ...Carr first stated that decisions on how judges were deployed were “exclusively a matter for the judiciary” after the government said it would move 150 judges to deal with migrant appeals under the new law, as it seeks to allay concerns from Conservative MPs about the bill.
Carr said that headlines related to the move drew “matters of judicial responsibility into the political arena” and that it was “important that people understand that clear division”.
At the same committee meeting, Carr rejected the notion that the judiciary had approved government legislation that would grant blanket exoneration to everyone convicted as a result of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. Such a move would mean bypassing the court of appeal, the normal avenue for challenging convictions, and has already raised concerns about ministers encroaching on the independence of the judiciary.
Carr confirmed she had “two short conversations” with the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, on the matter. She said: “I am very grateful for the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that any suggestion that the judiciary has given any proposed legislation the green light is simply not true.”..
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Informing ICO will just swap talking to one bunch of wasters with another.
It will, but it will probably cause HMRC sufficient embarrassment to stop dicking around, as it will go up to senior management who will be pissed off.
Don't contact the namesake, whatever you do. That could draw you in to a nasty mess.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
I'd suggest
1, to make sure you have it in writing if the manure hits the fan. .
2, ditto, as above. Or even better write a registered letter, for same reasons as above. And resend it with a covering letter if nothing happens in 6 months or so.
3. Maybe.
4. No, because if anything ever goes wrong for the other lady you'll risk being blamed. Keep well clear.
But surely Mrs F should have a unique taxpayer reference number - a UTR it is called, in my case a series of 10 digits in two pentuple subclutches - *as well as* a NI number? (I know, I know - HMRC seem to use both or neither at random. But if she doesn't, it might be an issue.)
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
You can use the energy ombudsman, but only if BG haven't resolved it after 8 weeks.
I already have. And had a ruling in my favour. They've ignored him and kept piling on the errors.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Informing ICO will just swap talking to one bunch of wasters with another.
Whereas I would automatically assume that of the ICO would be useless I reported DBIS to them re the handling of a FOI request and they took them apart impressively. Subsequent FOI showed DBIS were not happy about it at all. Needless to say DBIS deserved it.
So, how much are Fujitsu going to chuck in the pot? £500m is a nice round sum.
Start at a billion.
BILLION has a nice tabloid-friendly feel about it. Looks good in all-caps. 'Half a...' anything plays much less well.
I think it’s going to take more than money I think. Through being gobbed on in supermarkets and grandsons bullied in schools, it means media and local communities were conned and mugged into treating the PO victims and their families as scum. It would be nice if we could think of ways of demonstrating the very opposite of that - like local and national rallies, where the PO victims can go on stage and be applauded and cheered by masses of people come to pay their respects.
A just posted comment from our local MP, that gives a few clues as to how the Tories might fight the coming election. The comment about the PO is despicable.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
The evidence so far is that this isn't going to happen. Let's assume that 'far right' means something consistent with multi party democracy, capacity to lose etc, so we aren't talking about Trump or totalitarians or authoritarians; nor are we talking about the populism which suggests simple answers to complex problems.
Within those constraints, what are the big ideas swirling around in radical conservative circles, costed (so not Trussism), thought out, deliverable, which are so different from the generality of the Overton Window. If they were around, would we not be talking about them?
The era we live in is quite chaotic, the overton window can shift and 'unthinkable' ideas come in to play, similar to how the statism of the Johnson era contrasted with decades of neoliberalism. The Rwanda idea is fairly mainstream in Europe after Britain being an outlier for a while.
If you think that things have to change then unthinkable solutions come in to play. It is like in Germany where politicians claiming 'we can do this' in 2015 (bringing in millions of refugees) are replaced in 2024 by politicians promising to deport millions of refugees.
What I can say for sure is politicians are so entrenched in ideology that they have become out of touch with real life outside the demands of their activist base. IE Councils devoting resources to being a 'Borough of sanctuary' for asylum seekers, providing immigrants with housing etc, when they themselves have massive waiting lists and people at their wits end with no housing, teenage single mothers being housed 200 miles away from family etc. Things like this get corrected in the fullness of time.
Thanks. I think it's fair to ask again:What are the big ideas. You indicate a few: The Rwanda style deal; mass deportations of millions; reform of the social housing waiting lists.
Of these the Rwanda deal is a non starter in terms of real effectiveness - even if it could be implemented which it can't. Mass deportations of millions is on no sane agenda I have come across. Any Tory MPs mentioned it? Or Farage? Or Lozza? Reform of social housing, which is the best runner of the three, involved a marginally better way of dealing with a problem insoluble without investment of mega billions we haven't got.
Looking at the extreme agenda in the UK, I notice this from Reclaim's manifesto (ie Lozza's lot). They would get rid of illegal immigration by allowing asylum applications from your own or third countries.
Simple when you know how. I think they hope no-one spots the flaw.
I've read both manifesto's of Reclaim and Reform. Both are uninspiring and vague and not really any different to the conservative party apart from turning up the volume on "cutting the woke crap" and an actual commitment to leave the ECHR on the part of Reform. There is no sense of any real project.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Interesting. Trump did however get more votes overall than in the 2016 Iowa caucus (56k this time versus 45k in 2016), despite turnout being down from 187k to 110k (due to the weather or disillusion?)
Thigs can always be interpreted in many ways. Despite Trump's entreaties to his supporters to come the very fact he was always going to win easily may have been responsible for at least part of decrease in turnout. But it would be nice to see it be a lessening of fervour among the GOP which will translate into a disappointing general election.
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
Read's testimony at the Select Committee was pathetic. Absolute unflinching self confidence yet unable to answer a question. An absolute dog ate my homework performance.
And yet he takes home ca. half a million a year. He's barely capable of restocking the shelves in an all-night supermarket.
I have seldom come across someone so lacking in self awareness. A self confidence bordering on arrogance but no apparent understanding of what his organisation does and certainly no concept of the mechanics of the scandal. To have done no homework strikes me as a complete contempt of both the personnel on the Select Committee and its purpose.
A just posted comment from our local MP, that gives a few clues as to how the Tories might fight the coming election. The comment about the PO is despicable.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
I'm irresistibly reminded of the Joker's dictum about plans:
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
Read's testimony at the Select Committee was pathetic. Absolute unflinching self confidence yet unable to answer a question. An absolute dog ate my homework performance.
And yet he takes home ca. half a million a year. He's barely capable of restocking the shelves in an all-night supermarket.
I have seldom come across someone so lacking in self awareness. A self confidence bordering on arrogance but no apparent understanding of what his organisation does and certainly no concept of the mechanics of the scandal. To have done no homework strikes me as a complete contempt of both the personnel on the Select Committee and its purpose.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Probably more likely it "proves" people are less inclined to go out and vote when it's -30 (first centigrade, then fahrenheit).
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
You can use the energy ombudsman, but only if BG haven't resolved it after 8 weeks.
I already have. And had a ruling in my favour. They've ignored him and kept piling on the errors.
You can find the email address of the Chief Executive + address; cc the legal department. Send a letter and email setting out what has happened. Tell them of the Ombudsman's ruling. Tell them that if they do not sort this out pronto you will take them to the small claims court and ensure this is widely publicised in the press / on Twx . Cancel your direct debit pronto so that they cannot take any money out of your account. Etc.,.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Ask your MP to sort it out. This is PB, after all.
So, how much are Fujitsu going to chuck in the pot? £500m is a nice round sum.
Start at a billion.
A billion is probably pretty close to the full cost. Asking Fujitsu to pay half doesn’t seem unreasonable. 100% seems to be excusing the PO for their part in this, which was considerable.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Informing ICO will just swap talking to one bunch of wasters with another.
It will, but it will probably cause HMRC sufficient embarrassment to stop dicking around, as it will go up to senior management who will be pissed off.
Don't contact the namesake, whatever you do. That could draw you in to a nasty mess.
Yes, definitely don't contact the namesake.
I'd opt for b) call them again. Make a note of the date and time of any calls. If you know the date of the last call ask for a recording of that call, if not you can ask for a recording of this call next time. Ask them to confirm on the call that they are changing the records. Tell them you will be asking for a recording of this call if they fail to correct your records. Ask to speak to a supervisor if you are not confident.
You can also ask for a Subject Access Request of all the data they have on you and ask for them to correct it under GDPR.
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
The Fujitsu people were notably better although still unable to answer really predictable questions.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
You can use the energy ombudsman, but only if BG haven't resolved it after 8 weeks.
I already have. And had a ruling in my favour. They've ignored him and kept piling on the errors.
I had a similar experience. British Gas claimed to have accepted the Ombudsman finding, but would ignore my contacts, and I had to keep contact the Ombudsman through the portal and British Gas would pick up the phone to them. Eventually they ponied up, with some additional funds in recompense. This was where I learned from the Ombudsman that the standard British Gas have to meet is merely to say they are attempting to resolve the problems. If they say that, you don't have a leg to stand on, even if they never do it or lie to you. I only got a ruling in favour because the customer service failings were so egregious - British Gas didn't even dispute my claims.
Then when new issues arose (not that they sorted out the initial issue) and British Gas ignored it, closed complaints without telling me against their own policy and in a couple of cases even provably lied (such as saying they had contacted team x, then an adviser the next week stating no such contact had taken place at all, and the file did not even say it should happen at some point), I had to raise another case with the Ombudsman. British Gas claimed it was the same issue and the matter was closed, and I had to get the Ombudsman to reopen it by showing British Gas lied to them it was the same problem. Once again they dragged things out, and did not even then contest anything I claimed to be the case, and they eventually forked over some compesatory money.
I do not like British Gas is what I'm saying.
Not only are they crap, they compound it by refusing to communicate and having customer service agents lie in easily provable ways, and even when they know this they don't follow their complaints policies even as they do not contest any issues, as they presumably know most will not go to the Ombudsman at all, and they can even ignore that half the time.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Interesting. Trump did however get more votes overall than in the 2016 Iowa caucus (56k this time versus 45k in 2016), despite turnout being down from 187k to 110k (due to the weather or disillusion?)
Thigs can always be interpreted in many ways. Despite Trump's entreaties to his supporters to come the very fact he was always going to win easily may have been responsible for at least part of decrease in turnout. But it would be nice to see it be a lessening of fervour among the GOP which will translate into a disappointing general election.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Probably more likely it "proves" people are less inclined to go out and vote when it's -30 (first centigrade, then fahrenheit).
You mean someone would have to be insane to go out in that, proving nobody with any sanity has yet voted?
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Interesting. Trump did however get more votes overall than in the 2016 Iowa caucus (56k this time versus 45k in 2016), despite turnout being down from 187k to 110k (due to the weather or disillusion?)
Maybe that’s because it was in comparison to this week a much stronger list of experienced opponents at this stage in 2016, many of whom had been setting up that campaign for a long time, whilst Trump was an unknown quantity without the fan base and momentum?
A just posted comment from our local MP, that gives a few clues as to how the Tories might fight the coming election. The comment about the PO is despicable.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
The thing is that "going back to square one" sounds rather a good thing at the moment.
I note both IOW seats go red in the infamous MRP this week, but very narrowly. It does look as if LD and Green should vote Lab to be sure, but must be difficult when it was a LD seat within living memory and a lot of the South Coast of the mainland looking LD too.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
You can use the energy ombudsman, but only if BG haven't resolved it after 8 weeks.
I already have. And had a ruling in my favour. They've ignored him and kept piling on the errors.
You can find the email address of the Chief Executive + address; cc the legal department. Send a letter and email setting out what has happened. Tell them of the Ombudsman's ruling. Tell them that if they do not sort this out pronto you will take them to the small claims court and ensure this is widely publicised in the press / on Twx . Cancel your direct debit pronto so that they cannot take any money out of your account. Etc.,.
That is sound advice. I had a big issue with a Hilton Double Tree Hotel. I emailed the CEO (on three possible email addresses) of Hilton Inc and he got back to me. The Vice Presidents and Executive Directors jumped to attention and I was reimbursed as demanded.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Interesting. Trump did however get more votes overall than in the 2016 Iowa caucus (56k this time versus 45k in 2016), despite turnout being down from 187k to 110k (due to the weather or disillusion?)
Maybe that’s because it was in comparison to this week a much stronger list of experienced opponents at this stage in 2016, many of whom had been setting up that campaign for a long time, whilst Trump was an unknown quantity without the fan base and momentum?
Yes, I think this a bit lacklustre for Trump. Low turnout may be the weather, but also the reluctance of many to endorse Trump. 51% isn't a great score for the great orange egotist.
Let's have a few more contests, but I sense that Trump has a high floor but a low ceiling in terms of support.
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value. The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
Probably more likely it "proves" people are less inclined to go out and vote when it's -30 (first centigrade, then fahrenheit).
You mean someone would have to be insane to go out in that, proving nobody with any sanity has yet voted?
I don't think the words "less inclined" were a comment on anyone's mental state though one might question whether venturing out at all in temperatures at which frostbite becomes a close friend is necessarily a shrewd move whether to support Trump or not.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
I'd suggest
1, to make sure you have it in writing if the manure hits the fan. .
2, ditto, as above. Or even better write a registered letter, for same reasons as above. And resend it with a covering letter if nothing happens in 6 months or so.
3. Maybe.
4. No, because if anything ever goes wrong for the other lady you'll risk being blamed. Keep well clear.
But surely Mrs F should have a unique taxpayer reference number - a UTR it is called, in my case a series of 10 digits in two pentuple subclutches - *as well as* a NI number? (I know, I know - HMRC seem to use both or neither at random. But if she doesn't, it might be an issue.)
Mrs Flatlander's UTR remains intact and is correct. Her NI number remains and is correct. This is what I don't understand.
Getting it in writing that the data was screwed up seems like a good idea - we've only had such admissions over the phone in the past.
Previously we have been told that the other lady was operating under a "temporary NI" and that might have caused HRMC to try and merge the records.
It seems like a serious bug in their system. They should not be using First Name, Last Name and DOB as a unique key under any circumstances.
Totally agree with the answers to No 4, BTW - seems like a very bad idea. I only added it for completeness, really.
I'm tempted by involving the ICO just for the kicks but as El_Capitano says, it is likely just to add more wasters to deal with and there's too many of those around as it is (such as British Gas, it seems).
Mrs Flatlander has a daily rant about "why can't people do their jobs properly any more". I, being a cynic, would suggest that nothing much has changed on that score. It is just that one person can do more damage with a computer than they ever could with a pen.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read. b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year. c) Inform ICO. d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Informing ICO will just swap talking to one bunch of wasters with another.
Whereas I would automatically assume that of the ICO would be useless I reported DBIS to them re the handling of a FOI request and they took them apart impressively. Subsequent FOI showed DBIS were not happy about it at all. Needless to say DBIS deserved it.
I confess to being serially underimpressed with the ICO. When I was editing magazines they would bombard us with completely irrelevant press releases of no relevance to our subject matter - in other words, spam. Countless emails to them saying "take me off your mailing list" had no effect.
In other news, this week the ICO fined HelloFresh £140,000 for spamming. Do you think they might take their own advice?
So, how much are Fujitsu going to chuck in the pot? £500m is a nice round sum.
Start at a billion.
A billion is probably pretty close to the full cost. Asking Fujitsu to pay half doesn’t seem unreasonable. 100% seems to be excusing the PO for their part in this, which was considerable.
Let Fujitsu foot the bill, they were responsible and they can afford it. Penalising the Post Office ultimately means penalising the public purse.
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
Read's testimony at the Select Committee was pathetic. Absolute unflinching self confidence yet unable to answer a question. An absolute dog ate my homework performance.
And yet he takes home ca. half a million a year. He's barely capable of restocking the shelves in an all-night supermarket.
I have seldom come across someone so lacking in self awareness. A self confidence bordering on arrogance but no apparent understanding of what his organisation does and certainly no concept of the mechanics of the scandal. To have done no homework strikes me as a complete contempt of both the personnel on the Select Committee and its purpose.
Mind boggling.
So you've never come across Susan Acland-Hood?
You're a lucky bastard, you know that don't you?
I hear Susan Acland-Hood is going to be appointed as the next Chair of British Gas.
A just posted comment from our local MP, that gives a few clues as to how the Tories might fight the coming election. The comment about the PO is despicable.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
The thing is that "going back to square one" sounds rather a good thing at the moment.
I note both IOW seats go red in the infamous MRP this week, but very narrowly. It does look as if LD and Green should vote Lab to be sure, but must be difficult when it was a LD seat within living memory and a lot of the South Coast of the mainland looking LD too.
"going back to square one" is only a worry if you feel you made any bloody progress at all. Not many feeling that we've made much progress since 2010 right now.
So British Gas have now sent me a bill, and are charging me for two months into one when they had already noted the charge for the previous month on the previous bill.
Claiming as a result that my account is £61 in credit instead of £190.
What a bunch of lunatic scumbags.
Which police force do I call about this, because I have had the fuck enough?
You can use the energy ombudsman, but only if BG haven't resolved it after 8 weeks.
I already have. And had a ruling in my favour. They've ignored him and kept piling on the errors.
You can find the email address of the Chief Executive + address; cc the legal department. Send a letter and email setting out what has happened. Tell them of the Ombudsman's ruling. Tell them that if they do not sort this out pronto you will take them to the small claims court and ensure this is widely publicised in the press / on Twx . Cancel your direct debit pronto so that they cannot take any money out of your account. Etc.,.
Great advice. And I've done that already too...
They really are more lost than a camel at the North Pole.
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
The problem with being unaccountable is that there is no failure.
With no failure, there is no fear of failure. Or need to know anything about one’s job. Why not drift through life, vaguely wondering about those boring things in the big meetings.
Think brainless aristocrat. Without Jeeves to sort him out.
A just posted comment from our local MP, that gives a few clues as to how the Tories might fight the coming election. The comment about the PO is despicable.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
That is despicable. If my local MP sends me something similar, he is going to regret it.
So, how much are Fujitsu going to chuck in the pot? £500m is a nice round sum.
Start at a billion.
A billion is probably pretty close to the full cost. Asking Fujitsu to pay half doesn’t seem unreasonable. 100% seems to be excusing the PO for their part in this, which was considerable.
Yes - that might be where they end up but start by asking for an unreasonable sum and then they'll be pleased to get away with half a billion.
I'm willing to bet that the full cost will likely be more anyway.
What struck me about the evidence given by the Fujitsu and Post Office CEOs is - apart from its content - how appallingly badly briefed and prepared they were.
Nick Read in particular is just useless: how can a CEO not know that a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement = a Non-Disclosure Agreement?
To call these people third-rate is to compliment them.
Read's testimony at the Select Committee was pathetic. Absolute unflinching self confidence yet unable to answer a question. An absolute dog ate my homework performance.
And yet he takes home ca. half a million a year. He's barely capable of restocking the shelves in an all-night supermarket.
I have seldom come across someone so lacking in self awareness. A self confidence bordering on arrogance but no apparent understanding of what his organisation does and certainly no concept of the mechanics of the scandal. To have done no homework strikes me as a complete contempt of both the personnel on the Select Committee and its purpose.
Mind boggling.
So you've never come across Susan Acland-Hood?
You're a lucky bastard, you know that don't you?
I hear Susan Acland-Hood is going to be appointed as the next Chair of British Gas.
I do hope so. I've left the fuckers so it wouldn't hurt me and the further she's kept from children the better.
It seems to me that the most obvious political solution for the Conservative party is to move to the 'far right', defining itself as being against the progressive consensus and coming up with some radical solutions to political problems. It seems to me that this is where they will probably go out of necessity and the likelihood of success depends on their ability to outperform others acting in this space like 'reform' and 'reclaim'. A lot would depend on finding the right leader, if they can find someone young and who looks like the future then they are in with a shot; but they still have to be accountable to their aging voter base who act as an obstacle as well as an asset.
The evidence so far is that this isn't going to happen. Let's assume that 'far right' means something consistent with multi party democracy, capacity to lose etc, so we aren't talking about Trump or totalitarians or authoritarians; nor are we talking about the populism which suggests simple answers to complex problems.
Within those constraints, what are the big ideas swirling around in radical conservative circles, costed (so not Trussism), thought out, deliverable, which are so different from the generality of the Overton Window. If they were around, would we not be talking about them?
The era we live in is quite chaotic, the overton window can shift and 'unthinkable' ideas come in to play, similar to how the statism of the Johnson era contrasted with decades of neoliberalism. The Rwanda idea is fairly mainstream in Europe after Britain being an outlier for a while.
If you think that things have to change then unthinkable solutions come in to play. It is like in Germany where politicians claiming 'we can do this' in 2015 (bringing in millions of refugees) are replaced in 2024 by politicians promising to deport millions of refugees.
What I can say for sure is politicians are so entrenched in ideology that they have become out of touch with real life outside the demands of their activist base. IE Councils devoting resources to being a 'Borough of sanctuary' for asylum seekers, providing immigrants with housing etc, when they themselves have massive waiting lists and people at their wits end with no housing, teenage single mothers being housed 200 miles away from family etc. Things like this get corrected in the fullness of time.
Thanks. I think it's fair to ask again:What are the big ideas. You indicate a few: The Rwanda style deal; mass deportations of millions; reform of the social housing waiting lists.
Of these the Rwanda deal is a non starter in terms of real effectiveness - even if it could be implemented which it can't. Mass deportations of millions is on no sane agenda I have come across. Any Tory MPs mentioned it? Or Farage? Or Lozza? Reform of social housing, which is the best runner of the three, involved a marginally better way of dealing with a problem insoluble without investment of mega billions we haven't got.
Looking at the extreme agenda in the UK, I notice this from Reclaim's manifesto (ie Lozza's lot). They would get rid of illegal immigration by allowing asylum applications from your own or third countries.
Simple when you know how. I think they hope no-one spots the flaw.
I've read both manifesto's of Reclaim and Reform. Both are uninspiring and vague and not really any different to the conservative party apart from turning up the volume on "cutting the woke crap" and an actual commitment to leave the ECHR on the part of Reform. There is no sense of any real project.
Isn't it the case that if there were a possible coherent strongly right wing set of policies for this period of time, costed, electable, clearly different and principled someone would have stuck it in a programme for government, put 'Conservative Party' on the front and got ready to fight the next election on it?
A just posted comment from our local MP, that gives a few clues as to how the Tories might fight the coming election. The comment about the PO is despicable.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
The Tory’s - quite cleverly actually - got to the microphones first with opposition’s culpability in PO scandal, placing into their friendly media outlets - which instantly looked a rather laughable spun take on it to me. The Sunday Times political unit for goodness sake is more Tory than the Tory’s own dirty tricks and communication units! They probably turned down being recruited by the Tories with: yes I’m far superior to anything you have employed there, but that also means I’m smart enough to be earning even more money in more secure job!
But whilst that initial advantage is wearing off a bit now, and ultimately, having governed alone the more recent nine years of this scandal, the Tories are the most exposed to this one, it might be how Libdems and Labour so caught on the hop initially, by the willingness of the Tories to throw stones in glass houses.
Yet I’m thinking now, it’s a superb Tory victory, guessing the media coverage will run out of legs before it delved into Tory culpability, so all voters remember is that it’s all Davey’s fault. That leaflet in conjunction with how the media has all but moved on now to helpfully debunk that leaflet, makes me think the Tories getting into print first to distort true history, stitch up the opposition, they’ve flipping got away with it. 😡
A just posted comment from our local MP, that gives a few clues as to how the Tories might fight the coming election. The comment about the PO is despicable.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
The Conservatives have been yammering on about "long-term plan" in every election since 2010. It's like an early version of ChatGPT that only knows 12 words.
Do you think they've not twigged that, whatever their "plan" is, people don't like it?
Comments
In 2015 they’d have said NOM
In 2016 they’d have said Remain
In 2017 they’d have said Con Maj
& in 2019 they’d have said NOM
But I’ll join in and say Lab Maj. Hard to see how it couldn’t be.
It’s supposed to attract the attention of people who aren’t much thinking about it.
Besides, what else can they do? Say "OK lads, a joke's a joke, but we need to let the Rwanda plan die in the snow"?
Rishi has ignored two opportunities to cut the scam loose (his first day and the Supreme Court judgement). It's too late for him to do anything but keep going with it.
Anyhow, look on the bright side, today the CEO committed to replace Horizon with a brand new IT system for subpostoffices. That will surely work out just fine.
Which is what many SPMs thought about Horizon.
Still not voting for them, but a government without Lee Anderson is a good step forwards.
What level of support do you think the Tories could get by shifting to the far right?
RefUK are averaging c. 10%. The current Tories are averaging 25%.
Let's say the 'New Right Conservatives' pick up all of RefUK's vote (I don't think that's a given by the way). That would take them to 35% which is unlikely to be enough for them to win a majority. No one will work in coalition with them (see also AfD).
And that is before we consider how many centre-right votes would split off to the LDs or some new Moderate Conservative Party. How many of the traditional Tory voters on here do you think would vote for a far right Conservative PArty?
And lost right-wing voters like myself, Big G, David etc that should be Tories but aren't currently definitely won't be going back then!
2010 - I can't comment, I wasn't even aware of PB
2015 - Maybe, but I think it would have been 50-75%
2016 - Probably right
2017 - Agreed
2019 - No way! I can't remember anyone suggesting Johnson wasn't going to win a majority.
After Brexit we've had May, Boris, Truss, and now Sunak. All have in their own ways tried to pursue the contradictory things their party's right wants and believes was 'promised' voters who still want it in 2016. All have failed (with the possible exception of Boris - whose personal flaws did for him) or are failing because of the need to compromise with reality rather than indulge fantasies.
If they carry on down that path, then it wouldn't take a particularly successful Labour government - merely one that sorted out some of its lower-hanging fruit - to be able to run a compelling 'stick with us, you don't want those lunatics back in causing chaos again like last time' campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/16/britons-living-abroad-regain-right-to-vote-in-uk-elections-as-15-year-rule-ends
Pollsters take note.
In 2015 NOM was 1/10 in the betting. I actually fancied the Tories to do it by the end but didn’t believe in my own methods enough and backed Tory minority I think
Lots, perhaps all, of those things were 1.3 or shorter at some point in that year and lost. I just can’t see this one getting turned over though, even with stiff Sir Keir being on telly during the campaign
Appealing to disgruntled pro-Brexit northerners was a short-term, tactical fix, which got the clown over the line against an opponent who was widely feared. But it was a strategic blind alley, except in the circumstance that the government could, within its five years, demonstrate significant investment benefits to the North. Which it has barely tried to do, let alone actually delivered. Indeed it is now openly advertising that it is repairing potholes in London using money originally intended for the north.
Otherwise, the Tories are trading the support of their educated long-term southern supporters for the transitory, fickle support of formerly red wall Labour voters who have got nothing back from their gamble.
The Tories need a long, hard think about what is their purpose in the contemporary political environment.
The only question in town is whether they can embark on this serious rethink right away, or have to go through some sort of HY-inspired denial of reality before they make a start.
It’s one of the reasons I’m expecting Labour to fall short this time. The task and situation is roughly comparable toCameron’s.
The possible joker is tactical voting but I don’t think it’s likely on the scale we saw from 1997-2005.
2016: 7227
2024: 3578
https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1747255189340626981
The Iowa results are, I think, of limited predictive value.
The BBC breathless reporting that this 'proves' Trump's broad appeal is, I think, slightly premature.
The polls were pretty even in Dec 2018. Corbynites were demanding an election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Which to be sure must happen to some degree, but is hard to judge. A similar thing is when the government is defeated by, say, an opposition amendment or some such, it's usually described as parliament asserting its authority, but the exact same thing would be true if parliament, as it usually does when there's a majority, backs the government.
The left is always about ends rather than means, and my lifetime experience of Labour politicians is that interest in the means doesn’t outlive their time in opposition.
I’m 99% certain it’s the third of those, government concedes. That’s why the wets are every bit as angry as the rebels are smug this evening - government will concede the hardened bill to the rebels, and the wets have absolutely no choice but to vote it through, or be the ones to cut their own Primeministers balls off at start of election year.
The right wing rebels have clearly won this one over the wets, simply on the basis of coming together and uniting, when all over Christmas and right up to this evening, just about no one thought they could or would.
The next headbangers v wets face off with be for crowning leader of the opposition - and all the right need to do is get a candidate into the final 2. So we can place our money on them winning that too, considering the MPs returned after election loss they might even place two right wing candidates in final 2.
Sir Keir’s plans actually probably would enthuse me if I didn’t completely distrust & dislike him. Govt being there to serve us, hardworking no frills public servants etc. I remember voting for Brown and thinking he’d be better than Cameron despite being less stylish and more dour. I still feel like a more natural Labour voter, and don’t like posh boy entitlement or cronyism. but his pious tone, lies & insincerity makes it a no-no this time
Of these the Rwanda deal is a non starter in terms of real effectiveness - even if it could be implemented which it can't. Mass deportations of millions is on no sane agenda I have come across. Any Tory MPs mentioned it? Or Farage? Or Lozza? Reform of social housing, which is the best runner of the three, involved a marginally better way of dealing with a problem insoluble without investment of mega billions we haven't got.
Looking at the extreme agenda in the UK, I notice this from Reclaim's manifesto (ie Lozza's lot). They would get rid of illegal immigration by allowing asylum applications from your own or third countries.
Simple when you know how. I think they hope no-one spots the flaw.
That to me is a number one regular political issue, but some things like standing up to the far right are deal-breakers that are more important than regular politics.
The problem for the tories is that, if they try and go centrist/woke, they lose votes to Reform. Where do they pick up replacement votes from? It is a crowded field already and they have trashed their reputation as a centrist party. If the labour government are a disaster, then the political situation changes.
Don't usually post this kind of thing but it seems to be down PB's street...
Mrs Flatlander has an annual dilemma on tax filling in day.
She has a namesake with the same date of birth and every year this namesake's details appear against her HMRC account, probably from an automatic records merger. The namesake is probably unaware that her account is screwed up as she is just about under the tax threshold and probably doesn't have to fill in a return. The data includes income, employment and in a previous year, the namesake's home address.
For the last 6 years Mrs Flatlander has dutifully rung HMRC and told them they are a bunch of wasters. Every year they promise to sort it out and every year they fail.
So, this year do we:
a) Try and delete the details and write a very snotty note in the comments which won't be read.
b) Ring up HMRC again, have another pointless conversation where they promise to fix it, and watch it reappear next year.
c) Inform ICO.
d) Inform the namesake (who may or may not see this as the start of some scam) plus any of the above.
Perhaps the answer will ultimately come in the form of a political insurgency rather than the Conservative Party.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/16/sue-carr-lady-chief-justice-sunak-judiciary
...Carr first stated that decisions on how judges were deployed were “exclusively a matter for the judiciary” after the government said it would move 150 judges to deal with migrant appeals under the new law, as it seeks to allay concerns from Conservative MPs about the bill.
Carr said that headlines related to the move drew “matters of judicial responsibility into the political arena” and that it was “important that people understand that clear division”.
At the same committee meeting, Carr rejected the notion that the judiciary had approved government legislation that would grant blanket exoneration to everyone convicted as a result of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. Such a move would mean bypassing the court of appeal, the normal avenue for challenging convictions, and has already raised concerns about ministers encroaching on the independence of the judiciary.
Carr confirmed she had “two short conversations” with the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, on the matter. She said: “I am very grateful for the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that any suggestion that the judiciary has given any proposed legislation the green light is simply not true.”..
Don't contact the namesake, whatever you do. That could draw you in to a nasty mess.
1, to make sure you have it in writing if the manure hits the fan. .
2, ditto, as above. Or even better write a registered letter, for same reasons as above. And resend it with a covering letter if nothing happens in 6 months or so.
3. Maybe.
4. No, because if anything ever goes wrong for the other lady you'll risk being blamed. Keep well clear.
But surely Mrs F should have a unique taxpayer reference number - a UTR it is called, in my case a series of 10 digits in two pentuple subclutches - *as well as* a NI number? (I know, I know - HMRC seem to use both or neither at random. But if she doesn't, it might be an issue.)
The other thing you could do is contact the Treasury Select Committee. They might take it seriously. Even if they don't, again, embarrassing for HMRC.
We can stick to the plan with Rishi or go back to square one with Sir Kier Starmer.
“Lib Dems under Ed Davey are already a discredited force thanks to his role in the Post Office scandal, whilst a vote for Reform is a vote to let Labour in.
“The choice is already clear. The Conservatives have a plan. Labour and the other parties do not.”
Mind boggling.
https://youtu.be/G0AXgaFqEas?si=ZKZk0PghE-PLtgGO
You're a lucky bastard, you know that don't you?
I'd opt for b) call them again. Make a note of the date and time of any calls. If you know the date of the last call ask for a recording of that call, if not you can ask for a recording of this call next time. Ask them to confirm on the call that they are changing the records. Tell them you will be asking for a recording of this call if they fail to correct your records. Ask to speak to a supervisor if you are not confident.
You can also ask for a Subject Access Request of all the data they have on you and ask for them to correct it under GDPR.
Then when new issues arose (not that they sorted out the initial issue) and British Gas ignored it, closed complaints without telling me against their own policy and in a couple of cases even provably lied (such as saying they had contacted team x, then an adviser the next week stating no such contact had taken place at all, and the file did not even say it should happen at some point), I had to raise another case with the Ombudsman. British Gas claimed it was the same issue and the matter was closed, and I had to get the Ombudsman to reopen it by showing British Gas lied to them it was the same problem. Once again they dragged things out, and did not even then contest anything I claimed to be the case, and they eventually forked over some compesatory money.
I do not like British Gas is what I'm saying.
Not only are they crap, they compound it by refusing to communicate and having customer service agents lie in easily provable ways, and even when they know this they don't follow their complaints policies even as they do not contest any issues, as they presumably know most will not go to the Ombudsman at all, and they can even ignore that half the time.
I note both IOW seats go red in the infamous MRP this week, but very narrowly. It does look as if LD and Green should vote Lab to be sure, but must be difficult when it was a LD seat within living memory and a lot of the South Coast of the mainland looking LD too.
Let's have a few more contests, but I sense that Trump has a high floor but a low ceiling in terms of support.
Getting it in writing that the data was screwed up seems like a good idea - we've only had such admissions over the phone in the past.
Previously we have been told that the other lady was operating under a "temporary NI" and that might have caused HRMC to try and merge the records.
It seems like a serious bug in their system. They should not be using First Name, Last Name and DOB as a unique key under any circumstances.
Totally agree with the answers to No 4, BTW - seems like a very bad idea. I only added it for completeness, really.
I'm tempted by involving the ICO just for the kicks but as El_Capitano says, it is likely just to add more wasters to deal with and there's too many of those around as it is (such as British Gas, it seems).
Mrs Flatlander has a daily rant about "why can't people do their jobs properly any more". I, being a cynic, would suggest that nothing much has changed on that score. It is just that one person can do more damage with a computer than they ever could with a pen.
(Logs off to watch "Brazil" again)
In other news, this week the ICO fined HelloFresh £140,000 for spamming. Do you think they might take their own advice?
So many leaving, standing down, moving on, updating their linkedin... etc. The fight has gone
"It is what it is", says one... in a job others would once have given their right arm to get.
Oh dear.
https://x.com/mrharrycole/status/1747347927050179047?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/dohanews/status/1747181583088373951
They really are more lost than a camel at the North Pole.
With no failure, there is no fear of failure. Or need to know anything about one’s job. Why not drift through life, vaguely wondering about those boring things in the big meetings.
Think brainless aristocrat. Without Jeeves to sort him out.
Tories are not as fed up as the country is with Tories.
I'm willing to bet that the full cost will likely be more anyway.
I don't see it now, and I don't see it coming.
But whilst that initial advantage is wearing off a bit now, and ultimately, having governed alone the more recent nine years of this scandal, the Tories are the most exposed to this one, it might be how Libdems and Labour so caught on the hop initially, by the willingness of the Tories to throw stones in glass houses.
Yet I’m thinking now, it’s a superb Tory victory, guessing the media coverage will run out of legs before it delved into Tory culpability, so all voters remember is that it’s all Davey’s fault. That leaflet in conjunction with how the media has all but moved on now to helpfully debunk that leaflet, makes me think the Tories getting into print first to distort true history, stitch up the opposition, they’ve flipping got away with it. 😡
Do you think they've not twigged that, whatever their "plan" is, people don't like it?