The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I can understand why you say that, and feel that way myself at times, but I'll also counter it. The 'state' generally does reasonably well. Things certainly are not as good as they can be thanks to the current government, but we're nowhere near (say) South Africa's levels of chaos. Not that we should be aiming for comparisons that low, but there is a comparison to be made.
Employment is high. The economy is, if not good, not terrible. The bins get collected. Most of us can see a doctor in a reasonable timeframe - for free. Things generally work, albeit somewhat chaotically. The 'state' makes mistakes - but it always has. And there are an awful lot of good workers within, and without, the state; people who work hard and diligently for both themselves and others. Yet we hear about the scoundrels.
Also, I'd say most politicians are good people, albeit flawed, as are we all. Some are sometimes put into positions they do not have the capability to do well, but there are few I would count as truly venal. And some who are absolute stars (IMO George Howarth being one such). But we rarely get to hear about them, as they just get on with their jobs.
I'd also add that I think there are very few states that are doing really well at the moment, particularly of the large economies, and not a single country has zero problems or issues. Neither is it realistic to expect that.
There's no other country I'd prefer to live in, if I was rich, or if I was poor.
I used to be a real w***** when it came to British pride. I would only buy politically British consumer goods including cars, ( wearing a little union flag under the bumper of my new Cologne built Ford Capri. I worshipped the BBC (I detest them now). I hated the notion that foreign asset strippers could defile our industrial crown jewels, and here we are with Tata dismantling our last remaining virgin steel works. Yes, I was a real buyer of pups.
From 2016 I was told by self-styled patriots like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Richard Tice and Arron Banks that people like me were traitors. Some of these people even made their fortunes betting against Britain.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats may be as disastrous as the PB faithful claim, and Starmer and Davey haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, but anything that gets rid of the self-serving grifters who have hijacked my country over the last decade can't come soon enough for me. My expectation however, is through sleight of hand or good fortune they will once again prevail, and take our once great nation further down the road to ruin.
I had one of those Ford Capris. OMG, The roadholding! Even @Dura_Ace would have left shit stains on the drivers seat!
They were basically a Mk.2 Cortina from the B-Pillar back so leaf spring/live axle and all of the massive unsprung weight that implies. My mate had a 1.3 XFlow variant in Baby Shit Bronze that we crashed somewhere near Osmotherly.
I don't recall it being particularly frightening, maybe because it had so little power. It was certainly crude compared the Manta but outsold it at least 20:1.
The worst thing about the Capri that I drove 40 years ago was pulling out of blind corners. The bonnet was so long that it made for guesswork.
When I was a kid I thought Ford Capris looked so cool.
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Has anyone else read Robin Cook's's book Point of Departure ?
Now, I would think life in Britain in around 2000, when he noted the following fact, was much more benign than in the 1970s. E.g. no Berlin Wall, hardly any strikes, no power cuts, no 3-day weeks or calls to the IMF.
In the 1970s, when he first became an MP, there were 4 times as many negative headlines in the national newspapers as positive ones. Around 2000, that ratio was 18 to 1.
I've read Robin Cook's book but it was so long ago I can't remember much about it at all.
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I can understand why you say that, and feel that way myself at times, but I'll also counter it. The 'state' generally does reasonably well. Things certainly are not as good as they can be thanks to the current government, but we're nowhere near (say) South Africa's levels of chaos. Not that we should be aiming for comparisons that low, but there is a comparison to be made.
Employment is high. The economy is, if not good, not terrible. The bins get collected. Most of us can see a doctor in a reasonable timeframe - for free. Things generally work, albeit somewhat chaotically. The 'state' makes mistakes - but it always has. And there are an awful lot of good workers within, and without, the state; people who work hard and diligently for both themselves and others. Yet we hear about the scoundrels.
Also, I'd say most politicians are good people, albeit flawed, as are we all. Some are sometimes put into positions they do not have the capability to do well, but there are few I would count as truly venal. And some who are absolute stars (IMO George Howarth being one such). But we rarely get to hear about them, as they just get on with their jobs.
I'd also add that I think there are very few states that are doing really well at the moment, particularly of the large economies, and not a single country has zero problems or issues. Neither is it realistic to expect that.
There's no other country I'd prefer to live in, if I was rich, or if I was poor.
I used to be a real w***** when it came to British pride. I would only buy politically British consumer goods including cars, ( wearing a little union flag under the bumper of my new Cologne built Ford Capri. I worshipped the BBC (I detest them now). I hated the notion that foreign asset strippers could defile our industrial crown jewels, and here we are with Tata dismantling our last remaining virgin steel works. Yes, I was a real buyer of pups.
From 2016 I was told by self-styled patriots like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Richard Tice and Arron Banks that people like me were traitors. Some of these people even made their fortunes betting against Britain.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats may be as disastrous as the PB faithful claim, and Starmer and Davey haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, but anything that gets rid of the self-serving grifters who have hijacked my country over the last decade can't come soon enough for me. My expectation however, is through sleight of hand or good fortune they will once again prevail, and take our once great nation further down the road to ruin.
I had one of those Ford Capris. OMG, The roadholding! Even @Dura_Ace would have left shit stains on the drivers seat!
They were basically a Mk.2 Cortina from the B-Pillar back so leaf spring/live axle and all of the massive unsprung weight that implies. My mate had a 1.3 XFlow variant in Baby Shit Bronze that we crashed somewhere near Osmotherly.
I don't recall it being particularly frightening, maybe because it had so little power. It was certainly crude compared the Manta but outsold it at least 20:1.
I had Mk IIIs. I believe they had jettisoned the cart springs by then, although the handling was still very poor. The torque through the back wheels of the 280 meant axle-tramp at the lights with the rear wheels keen to overtake the front. It was a handful, but quite fun in the dry. With wide alloys and Pirelli P6000 rubber band tyres it was awful, dangerous in fact, in the wet.
Unfortunately, having your passport renewed is a bit of a first world problem. Having to walk three miles down a busy A road with no proper pavement with a distressed 12 year old girl twice this term, leaving multiple classes without a teacher of any kind, because there's nobody else available to keep her safe and calm, crossing multiple roads, including dual carriageways, and no one to refer her on to to see within six months is more what I consider "nothing works".
Don't worry! I found this on a Department for Transport webpage!
"The forthcoming revision of the Manual for Streets will highlight the continuing need to design streets with people walking, cycling and taking public transport as the priority. Inclusive Mobility, updated in January 2022, provides detailed design advice to ensure the pedestrian environment is accessible to all."
Oh wait, something's just been added at the top of the page. Let me have a look:
"This statutory guidance was withdrawn on 2 October 2023. This guidance has been withdrawn with immediate effect. For more information, see the Plan for drivers."
Like you said. Nothing f—king works.
I've just qualified as a Youth Mental Health First Aider. I'm neither qualified nor confident in doing any of this. But, there is quite literally no fucker else to do it. And then there is no teacher for my classes. It breaks my heart and spikes my anxiety, but I will keep children safe if it kills me. The sprinting from the school gates to the main road almost did.
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I am an undecided too. I certainly won't be voting Con or REFUK and certainly will vote. I have never missed a chance to vote and won't now. On current polling my constituency is a Lab/Con marginal, but I don't want to vote Labour. Its difficult.
On the other hand if this constituency is marginal, then the Tories face a near armagedon, and Labour don't need my help.
I was chatting to Fox jr2 earlier. He is in a safe seat but can't stomach voting Labour either. Starmer’s lack of support for a Gaza ceasefire is the issue. I have never heard him mention the Israel/Palestine conflict before the current conflict.
I will definitely vote because voting is a privilege which most of the world and the vast majority of humans through history have not enjoyed, and for which many fought in the past.
I'll vote for Lab or LD, whichever I think has the best chance of knocking over this very safe Tory seat.
Imagine this a general election where no one casts a vote....sometimes withdrawing from the process is the only way to say this doesnt work....when you believe the current system is broken how else apart from not voting to you express it?
It depends on what you think doesn't work. Mass not voting suggests to bad actors that they would get along fine without an electorate, and the electorate wish to be disenfranchised. Syria and North Korea come to mind.
If what we need is brighter voters and better candidates, then good and better people standing and voting more brightly would seem the only options. There is no-one apart from the great UK public who can sort that one, by standing and voting.
I think none of it works we need to tear it down and design a system suited for our century not the 18th
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
Multiple reasons and varying from one problem to another.
The world is dynamic, continually changing - this causes problems and these need to be resolved.
And resolved to a level which enough of the population are willing to accept - not a 'perfect solution' which those directly affected might want.
I have paid my income tax tonight, and it is all so easy online. Taxing a car is so simple too, no scurrying around to find MOT or cover note, just click click.
On the other hand NHS waiting times are the worst that I have known in my 35 year career.
It is true that our kindly government has simplified and eased the process of paying them significant sums of money.
What would be good would be if other bits of the deal, for example the processes of money passing from government to individual, or accessing the NHS, or ringing someone in government up, or discovering how to email them, or getting a reply, were rendered as simple as doling out tax to them.
When I was at school we had the working poor. They were my school friends. They lived in good quality local authority housing, they had free health care, the school dentist, local authority swimming pools, libraries, school libraries, an equitable education system, free school meals, playgrounds, playing fields, subsidised works canteens, affordable public transport and public utilities that did their best not to cut off late payers. Bosses who's salary was a few notches up from the workers as opposed to now when Captains of Industry have earned the average salary by the 10th of January.
Yes at the time we were the sick man of Europe, but we were also a fairer, happier society. The right of centre argument is all this "free" stuff is unsustainable. I would warrant the average FTSE CEO earning 30 pr 40 times the average salary is even more unsustainable. And I repeat, people like Robert Jenrick and Braverman couldn't give two hoots for the welfare of British citizens, they are too busy feathering their own meaningless ambitions. What kind of moral vacuum paints over Disney characters at a children's asylum centre, or removes tents from destitute PTSD suffering ex-soldiers?
Back in the 1980s I worked for a firm whose skilled engineers were paid what was called Star Rate. Less skilled engineers earned 10% less. Senior engineers earned 10% more. Owner directors were paid double Star Rate. The company was 100% employee owned. Then they allowed accountants in …. 😡
“Before the Biden administration” is an odd way to say the Trump White House.
The White House Medical Unit had “severe and systemic problems” with their pharmacy operations and provided health care to ineligible staffers before the Biden administration, according to a scathing inspector general report. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1751632566245851158
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I am an undecided too. I certainly won't be voting Con or REFUK and certainly will vote. I have never missed a chance to vote and won't now. On current polling my constituency is a Lab/Con marginal, but I don't want to vote Labour. Its difficult.
On the other hand if this constituency is marginal, then the Tories face a near armagedon, and Labour don't need my help.
I was chatting to Fox jr2 earlier. He is in a safe seat but can't stomach voting Labour either. Starmer’s lack of support for a Gaza ceasefire is the issue. I have never heard him mention the Israel/Palestine conflict before the current conflict.
I will definitely vote because voting is a privilege which most of the world and the vast majority of humans through history have not enjoyed, and for which many fought in the past.
I'll vote for Lab or LD, whichever I think has the best chance of knocking over this very safe Tory seat.
Imagine this a general election where no one casts a vote....sometimes withdrawing from the process is the only way to say this doesnt work....when you believe the current system is broken how else apart from not voting to you express it?
It depends on what you think doesn't work. Mass not voting suggests to bad actors that they would get along fine without an electorate, and the electorate wish to be disenfranchised. Syria and North Korea come to mind.
If what we need is brighter voters and better candidates, then good and better people standing and voting more brightly would seem the only options. There is no-one apart from the great UK public who can sort that one, by standing and voting.
I think none of it works we need to tear it down and design a system suited for our century not the 18th
The best way to do that, however, is to elect people under the current system who support that goal.
"And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to."
The misogyny on display here is quite something.
Let's ignore for the moment Art. 3 of the ECHR or the Mandela Principles on prisons.
The women prisoners are not even mentioned and the idea that they should have a say or, even, a veto on whether a male offender should be locked up with them simply does not even occur to him. Women prisoners must simply put up with the risk or reality of rape or violence or indecent exposure or voyeurism. Because their rights or views don't matter.
And then @kinabalu has the nerve to say that trans rights are at risk of being rolled back. No they aren't: in this country trans people have exactly the same legal rights as everyone else. There is no political party which has put forward any proposal to remove any of these legal rights. What they do not have and should not have is the right to take away the rights of others - the right of women to single sex spaces, services or associations, for instance. And yet that is the explicit campaigning position of trans activist groups. It is the explicit position of such groups to want the removal of one type of offence of rape - rape by deception. Very progressive, that: wanting to be able to deceive women into sex.
But, hey, who cares about consent!
And what is also very common is those who come out with this totally ignore the court judgments which women have been winning in recent years, funded by endless crowd-funding, to preserve their existing rights. Those judgments are long but are worth reading, especially by those who opine on the law without understanding it, without understanding why ignoring what the law says causes real harm to others and without understanding the reality of what women have endured.
There is something deeply unpleasant about the way in which any woman talking about women's' rights or needs or the reality of what life is like because of their sex is almost always automatically attacked as bigoted or hateful because she does not centre or deem as the only important thing the demands of men.
I expect the usual suspects will do this to me too. But, fuck it, I don't care. Women are not support animals for men. Men's demands are not "rights". Men's feelings are not more important than anyone else's. Women's rights are human rights. Anyone seeking to limit or remove them is not, in any sense, "progressive" or "liberal".
Surely the problem with this rant is it begs the question of whether trans women are women or men. And even if we grant that post-op trans women are women, what about the first day a man dons a frock: when does the transition occur.
And as a practical matter in the context of prison, criminals as a class are not known for their veracity, and there is an incentive for cis men to pretend to be trans women in order to gain access to women's spaces or at least to get a cushier life (whether life in a women's prison is actually better than life in a men's prison is open to doubt but that's another matter).
I would have sympathy with someone who is trans and forced to live in a prison of the opposite gender. The root of the problem is that the whole prison system is a disaster. People are living 2xto a cell, 6.5 sqm big, for 23 out of 24 hours a day, in squalid victorian buildings, with rodents, cockroaches etc. The rest of Europe has moved on but we are stuck in this situation which is basically evidence of civilisation decline.
But no sympathy - apparently - for women prisoners, often the victims of domestic violence or male violence, forced to live with a man pretending to be a woman, a man who in the vast majority of cases has had no surgery (80 - 90% of all trans people make no surgical changes) and retains a male body and all the advantages of male puberty and superior strength.
Something like 50 - 60% of all trans prisoners who are male (claiming to be females) in U.K. prisons have been convicted of sexual violence against women or children.
Do you have any idea how frightening it is for women to be locked up with such men?
In 2021 an English court ruled that women would just have to live with this.
And yet we have people on here claiming that we are better than third world countries. Well, a country which thinks it acceptable for a woman to have to put up with rape or the fear of it to assuage a man's feelings is not, frankly, in a particularly strong position to lecture third world countries.
Call it a rant if you want. I know what rape means. I buried the experience after it happened but decades later that court judgment "triggered" me. How dare the state treat vulnerable marginalised women in its care in such a way.
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I can understand why you say that, and feel that way myself at times, but I'll also counter it. The 'state' generally does reasonably well. Things certainly are not as good as they can be thanks to the current government, but we're nowhere near (say) South Africa's levels of chaos. Not that we should be aiming for comparisons that low, but there is a comparison to be made.
Employment is high. The economy is, if not good, not terrible. The bins get collected. Most of us can see a doctor in a reasonable timeframe - for free. Things generally work, albeit somewhat chaotically. The 'state' makes mistakes - but it always has. And there are an awful lot of good workers within, and without, the state; people who work hard and diligently for both themselves and others. Yet we hear about the scoundrels.
Also, I'd say most politicians are good people, albeit flawed, as are we all. Some are sometimes put into positions they do not have the capability to do well, but there are few I would count as truly venal. And some who are absolute stars (IMO George Howarth being one such). But we rarely get to hear about them, as they just get on with their jobs.
I'd also add that I think there are very few states that are doing really well at the moment, particularly of the large economies, and not a single country has zero problems or issues. Neither is it realistic to expect that.
There's no other country I'd prefer to live in, if I was rich, or if I was poor.
I used to be a real w***** when it came to British pride. I would only buy politically British consumer goods including cars, ( wearing a little union flag under the bumper of my new Cologne built Ford Capri. I worshipped the BBC (I detest them now). I hated the notion that foreign asset strippers could defile our industrial crown jewels, and here we are with Tata dismantling our last remaining virgin steel works. Yes, I was a real buyer of pups.
From 2016 I was told by self-styled patriots like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Richard Tice and Arron Banks that people like me were traitors. Some of these people even made their fortunes betting against Britain.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats may be as disastrous as the PB faithful claim, and Starmer and Davey haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, but anything that gets rid of the self-serving grifters who have hijacked my country over the last decade can't come soon enough for me. My expectation however, is through sleight of hand or good fortune they will once again prevail, and take our once great nation further down the road to ruin.
I'm unsure quite what that's got to do with my post. I'm not talking about 'British pride'; but neither am I interested in 'British shame'. We're far from perfect, and I doubt I've ever suggested otherwise. We can improve a great deal - and hopefully the next (Labour) government will make progress.
But to listen to some people, you'd think we all lived in hovels with outside toilets, no running water and electricity powered by methane piped in from the local urchin farm. That there was mass unemployment and a gunman on every street corner.
That isn't a reason to vote Conservative, or indeed for anyone; just that people who are constantly utterly negative have probably lost all perspective.
Let me put it this way; one of the reasons the Post Office scandal has eventually struck the public's consciousness so strongly is that it seems so utterly against the way we think things should work in this country. And rightly so. But in many, many countries, what happened - and worse - would be accepted with a shrug and be seen as utterly unnoteworthy - "it's the way things are done."
We should not try to change that.
I suspect we are mostly on PB in the luxurious position of living in expensive, and comfortable homes. We are fortunate.
I have seen for myself (my wife was involved in parent and child foster caring for a number of years) and I saw poverty of an order I had no idea existed. We have ex-servicemen living in tents that Suella Braverman wanted to remove from them. We have families dispossessed of their homes and sent to local authority emergency accomodation. We live in a society that it more inequitable than it was a decade ago. To drive such inequality further is immoral. Maybe Labour can't do anything about it. The Conservatives on the other hand won't even try.
One nation feudal Tories in this iteration of the Conservative Party are a thing of the past.
There are more people sleeping in doorways in Leicester than have seen in any of the 30 years that I have lived here.
I remember seeing the cardboard cities and the soup kitchens at Temple underground during the Thatcher years, but now it's everywhere. Barnstaple last year was a shocker!
"And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to."
The misogyny on display here is quite something.
Let's ignore for the moment Art. 3 of the ECHR or the Mandela Principles on prisons.
The women prisoners are not even mentioned and the idea that they should have a say or, even, a veto on whether a male offender should be locked up with them simply does not even occur to him. Women prisoners must simply put up with the risk or reality of rape or violence or indecent exposure or voyeurism. Because their rights or views don't matter.
And then @kinabalu has the nerve to say that trans rights are at risk of being rolled back. No they aren't: in this country trans people have exactly the same legal rights as everyone else. There is no political party which has put forward any proposal to remove any of these legal rights. What they do not have and should not have is the right to take away the rights of others - the right of women to single sex spaces, services or associations, for instance. And yet that is the explicit campaigning position of trans activist groups. It is the explicit position of such groups to want the removal of one type of offence of rape - rape by deception. Very progressive, that: wanting to be able to deceive women into sex.
But, hey, who cares about consent!
And what is also very common is those who come out with this totally ignore the court judgments which women have been winning in recent years, funded by endless crowd-funding, to preserve their existing rights. Those judgments are long but are worth reading, especially by those who opine on the law without understanding it, without understanding why ignoring what the law says causes real harm to others and without understanding the reality of what women have endured.
There is something deeply unpleasant about the way in which any woman talking about women's' rights or needs or the reality of what life is like because of their sex is almost always automatically attacked as bigoted or hateful because she does not centre or deem as the only important thing the demands of men.
I expect the usual suspects will do this to me too. But, fuck it, I don't care. Women are not support animals for men. Men's demands are not "rights". Men's feelings are not more important than anyone else's. Women's rights are human rights. Anyone seeking to limit or remove them is not, in any sense, "progressive" or "liberal".
Surely the problem with this rant is it begs the question of whether trans women are women or men. And even if we grant that post-op trans women are women, what about the first day a man dons a frock: when does the transition occur.
And as a practical matter in the context of prison, criminals as a class are not known for their veracity, and there is an incentive for cis men to pretend to be trans women in order to gain access to women's spaces or at least to get a cushier life (whether life in a women's prison is actually better than life in a men's prison is open to doubt but that's another matter).
A man cannot turn into a woman. He can pretend to be one - like Andrew Miller, say. But no matter what he does he will never be a woman. A man who believes he is a woman needs to be put in a separate wing of a man's prison. Personally the amazing phenomenon of Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria which only seems to manifest itself when a man is charged with sexual offences against women or children sounds like a racket to me. But even if such men are genuine and are at risk from other male victims prisoners, that is an issue for men to solve. It is not for women to solve the problem of male violence or to be made subject to it.
So, applying your logic from the other side, a woman cannot become a man,
so a trans man,
no matter how muscled, no matter how bearded, no matter how pumped full of testosterone, no matter how sexually attracted to women,
always belongs in a women's prison, or other women-only space? OK?
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I am an undecided too. I certainly won't be voting Con or REFUK and certainly will vote. I have never missed a chance to vote and won't now. On current polling my constituency is a Lab/Con marginal, but I don't want to vote Labour. Its difficult.
On the other hand if this constituency is marginal, then the Tories face a near armagedon, and Labour don't need my help.
I was chatting to Fox jr2 earlier. He is in a safe seat but can't stomach voting Labour either. Starmer’s lack of support for a Gaza ceasefire is the issue. I have never heard him mention the Israel/Palestine conflict before the current conflict.
I will definitely vote because voting is a privilege which most of the world and the vast majority of humans through history have not enjoyed, and for which many fought in the past.
I'll vote for Lab or LD, whichever I think has the best chance of knocking over this very safe Tory seat.
Imagine this a general election where no one casts a vote....sometimes withdrawing from the process is the only way to say this doesnt work....when you believe the current system is broken how else apart from not voting to you express it?
It depends on what you think doesn't work. Mass not voting suggests to bad actors that they would get along fine without an electorate, and the electorate wish to be disenfranchised. Syria and North Korea come to mind.
If what we need is brighter voters and better candidates, then good and better people standing and voting more brightly would seem the only options. There is no-one apart from the great UK public who can sort that one, by standing and voting.
I think none of it works we need to tear it down and design a system suited for our century not the 18th
Good plan, reminiscent of South Park and the underpants:
1) Tear down old system 2) ? 3) Have great new system.
Isn't the Earl Of Chatham Pitt The Elder? I remain of the view that Sunak does want to get things done and is probably more of that mind than concerned with dates. He's also relatively young and could be Prime minister again in the future. The fact that David Cameron is above Peel and Lloyd George on this list tells you it isn't worth much. Longevity is overrated.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Has anyone else read Robin Cook's's book Point of Departure ?
Now, I would think life in Britain in around 2000, when he noted the following fact, was much more benign than in the 1970s. E.g. no Berlin Wall, hardly any strikes, no power cuts, no 3-day weeks or calls to the IMF.
In the 1970s, when he first became an MP, there were 4 times as many negative headlines in the national newspapers as positive ones. Around 2000, that ratio was 18 to 1.
That ratio has likely increased even more because of social media.
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
Multiple reasons and varying from one problem to another.
The world is dynamic, continually changing - this causes problems and these need to be resolved.
And resolved to a level which enough of the population are willing to accept - not a 'perfect solution' which those directly affected might want.
The Government couldn't do much about the pandemic and one could argue too, Brown had his hands tied with the credit crisis, but incumbency means they pay the price.
There are other externalities which were the gift of the government. Public sector financial impropriety (including PPE fraud) and dare I say it Brexit are owned by the Tories.
"And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to."
The misogyny on display here is quite something.
Let's ignore for the moment Art. 3 of the ECHR or the Mandela Principles on prisons.
The women prisoners are not even mentioned and the idea that they should have a say or, even, a veto on whether a male offender should be locked up with them simply does not even occur to him. Women prisoners must simply put up with the risk or reality of rape or violence or indecent exposure or voyeurism. Because their rights or views don't matter.
And then @kinabalu has the nerve to say that trans rights are at risk of being rolled back. No they aren't: in this country trans people have exactly the same legal rights as everyone else. There is no political party which has put forward any proposal to remove any of these legal rights. What they do not have and should not have is the right to take away the rights of others - the right of women to single sex spaces, services or associations, for instance. And yet that is the explicit campaigning position of trans activist groups. It is the explicit position of such groups to want the removal of one type of offence of rape - rape by deception. Very progressive, that: wanting to be able to deceive women into sex.
But, hey, who cares about consent!
And what is also very common is those who come out with this totally ignore the court judgments which women have been winning in recent years, funded by endless crowd-funding, to preserve their existing rights. Those judgments are long but are worth reading, especially by those who opine on the law without understanding it, without understanding why ignoring what the law says causes real harm to others and without understanding the reality of what women have endured.
There is something deeply unpleasant about the way in which any woman talking about women's' rights or needs or the reality of what life is like because of their sex is almost always automatically attacked as bigoted or hateful because she does not centre or deem as the only important thing the demands of men.
I expect the usual suspects will do this to me too. But, fuck it, I don't care. Women are not support animals for men. Men's demands are not "rights". Men's feelings are not more important than anyone else's. Women's rights are human rights. Anyone seeking to limit or remove them is not, in any sense, "progressive" or "liberal".
Surely the problem with this rant is it begs the question of whether trans women are women or men. And even if we grant that post-op trans women are women, what about the first day a man dons a frock: when does the transition occur.
And as a practical matter in the context of prison, criminals as a class are not known for their veracity, and there is an incentive for cis men to pretend to be trans women in order to gain access to women's spaces or at least to get a cushier life (whether life in a women's prison is actually better than life in a men's prison is open to doubt but that's another matter).
A man cannot turn into a woman. He can pretend to be one - like Andrew Miller, say. But no matter what he does he will never be a woman. A man who believes he is a woman needs to be put in a separate wing of a man's prison. Personally the amazing phenomenon of Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria which only seems to manifest itself when a man is charged with sexual offences against women or children sounds like a racket to me. But even if such men are genuine and are at risk from other male victims prisoners, that is an issue for men to solve. It is not for women to solve the problem of male violence or to be made subject to it.
So, applying your logic from the other side, a woman cannot become a man,
so a trans man,
no matter how muscled, no matter how bearded, no matter how pumped full of testosterone, no matter how sexually attracted to women,
always belongs in a women's prison, or other women-only space? OK?
Men do not need protection from women. Women do need protection from men.
If somebody born female wants to be imprisoned with men, there's no reason not to respect that choice. If somebody born male wants to be imprisoned with women, there is a reason not to respect that choice.
Same goes for sport and other safeguarding issues too.
America needs to bomb the fuck out of Iran NOW, before they get nukes. Coz once they get nukes, they will launch them at Israel, and that’s World War 3 anyway
And Iran is mere months from nukes, and already has the missiles to reach as far as eastern Europe
Might as well get ahead of the curve and flatten Qom
Israel also has nukes so you'd think deterrence would work, but in the event that it doesn't, why would that turn into a World War? The US is a net oil exporter nowadays, it's not obvious why it's in their interests to expand a war between two sovereign states run by different bloodthirsty lunatics.
While I'm here let's briefly go thru your points. Firstly @Cyclefree: your statement that trans people have the same rights as everybody else is a miscomprehension. The creation of trans rights increased the rights of all people born as one legal sex to be considered in law as the other sex, a process known as "transition". That is the right in question. This was made explicit by the Gender Reassignment Act which created a legal mechanism whereby the sex on the birth certificate can be changed, thereby moving the person from one legal sex to the other. This is the root of the recent court decisions that were so widely discussed here
To demonstrate by analogy: if a gay person had the right to have same-sex sex removed then that person could legitimately claim to have had their rights removed, even though they still had the same right to have different-sex sex as other people. I could repeat the analogy for other characteristics (eg race, religion) but hopefully that will be unnecessary.
They have that right under the GRA and no party is proposing taking it away. But what is now being demanded is that they also have the right to insist that other people must believe that they have - in fact - changed sex and accommodate them in facilities for their own sex, thus removing their own rights. Whereas in fact they have not - and cannot change - sex as a matter of biological reality. A legal fiction does not change factual reality. People can believe what they want but they cannot and should not force others to share their beliefs. Social transition does not make a man into a woman because a woman is not a dress or make up or a name. And mutilation of one's body does not change sex.
If a female only space accommodates men it is no longer a female only space. Females are denied a right they previously had. They self-exclude. That is what has happened in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. It is not a "rant" to point out how unfair to raped women this is nor how unprogressive.
Where does someone like Caster Semenya fit into this?
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
Multiple reasons and varying from one problem to another.
The world is dynamic, continually changing - this causes problems and these need to be resolved.
And resolved to a level which enough of the population are willing to accept - not a 'perfect solution' which those directly affected might want.
The Government couldn't do much about the pandemic and one could argue too, Brown had his hands tied with the credit crisis, but incumbency means they pay the price.
There are other externalities which were the gift of the government. Public sector financial impropriety (including PPE fraud) and dare I say it Brexit are owned by the Tories.
The Government could have handled the pandemic better and handled pre-pandemic planning better.
"And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to."
The misogyny on display here is quite something.
Let's ignore for the moment Art. 3 of the ECHR or the Mandela Principles on prisons.
The women prisoners are not even mentioned and the idea that they should have a say or, even, a veto on whether a male offender should be locked up with them simply does not even occur to him. Women prisoners must simply put up with the risk or reality of rape or violence or indecent exposure or voyeurism. Because their rights or views don't matter.
And then @kinabalu has the nerve to say that trans rights are at risk of being rolled back. No they aren't: in this country trans people have exactly the same legal rights as everyone else. There is no political party which has put forward any proposal to remove any of these legal rights. What they do not have and should not have is the right to take away the rights of others - the right of women to single sex spaces, services or associations, for instance. And yet that is the explicit campaigning position of trans activist groups. It is the explicit position of such groups to want the removal of one type of offence of rape - rape by deception. Very progressive, that: wanting to be able to deceive women into sex.
But, hey, who cares about consent!
And what is also very common is those who come out with this totally ignore the court judgments which women have been winning in recent years, funded by endless crowd-funding, to preserve their existing rights. Those judgments are long but are worth reading, especially by those who opine on the law without understanding it, without understanding why ignoring what the law says causes real harm to others and without understanding the reality of what women have endured.
There is something deeply unpleasant about the way in which any woman talking about women's' rights or needs or the reality of what life is like because of their sex is almost always automatically attacked as bigoted or hateful because she does not centre or deem as the only important thing the demands of men.
I expect the usual suspects will do this to me too. But, fuck it, I don't care. Women are not support animals for men. Men's demands are not "rights". Men's feelings are not more important than anyone else's. Women's rights are human rights. Anyone seeking to limit or remove them is not, in any sense, "progressive" or "liberal".
Surely the problem with this rant is it begs the question of whether trans women are women or men. And even if we grant that post-op trans women are women, what about the first day a man dons a frock: when does the transition occur.
And as a practical matter in the context of prison, criminals as a class are not known for their veracity, and there is an incentive for cis men to pretend to be trans women in order to gain access to women's spaces or at least to get a cushier life (whether life in a women's prison is actually better than life in a men's prison is open to doubt but that's another matter).
A man cannot turn into a woman. He can pretend to be one - like Andrew Miller, say. But no matter what he does he will never be a woman. A man who believes he is a woman needs to be put in a separate wing of a man's prison. Personally the amazing phenomenon of Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria which only seems to manifest itself when a man is charged with sexual offences against women or children sounds like a racket to me. But even if such men are genuine and are at risk from other male victims prisoners, that is an issue for men to solve. It is not for women to solve the problem of male violence or to be made subject to it.
So, applying your logic from the other side, a woman cannot become a man,
so a trans man,
no matter how muscled, no matter how bearded, no matter how pumped full of testosterone, no matter how sexually attracted to women,
always belongs in a women's prison, or other women-only space? OK?
That's why I think it's more about genitals. Once a born man has decided to part ways with his penis, it's not just a physical change (which itself is important), it signifies other things too. Giving up the 'active' role in sex. Being serious enough about the change of gender to go through such a life-altering physical change. Receiving significant medical assessment over a period before being given such surgery.
I do think (and I am happy to be told different) that these things taken together mean such a person would be an appropriate candidate for a womens' prison all other things being equal (ie. not a nutter, not in for violent crimes). The cut-off point is the cut-off point.
Therefore, a former woman who had had surgery to gain male genitals would not be a suitable person for a womens' prison.
Isn't the Earl Of Chatham Pitt The Elder? I remain of the view that Sunak does want to get things done and is probably more of that mind than concerned with dates. He's also relatively young and could be Prime minister again in the future. The fact that David Cameron is above Peel and Lloyd George on this list tells you it isn't worth much. Longevity is overrated.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
I like how the Wikipedia table linked to let’s you know that Pitt was a Pittite Tory, while Lord North was a Northite one.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
"The unfashionable victims of the Post Office scandal The injustice suffered by ordinary folk from small towns often fails to move the political class."
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
Multiple reasons and varying from one problem to another.
The world is dynamic, continually changing - this causes problems and these need to be resolved.
And resolved to a level which enough of the population are willing to accept - not a 'perfect solution' which those directly affected might want.
The Government couldn't do much about the pandemic and one could argue too, Brown had his hands tied with the credit crisis, but incumbency means they pay the price.
There are other externalities which were the gift of the government. Public sector financial impropriety (including PPE fraud) and dare I say it Brexit are owned by the Tories.
I think the government would have been given the benefit of the doubt by the electorate for how they handled the external shocks of covid and Ukraine if it hadn't been for the personal misbehaviour of too many Conservative politicians and their associates.
Its the greed, hypocrisy and self-obsessed immaturity of Conservative politicians which drives the hostility towards them not what ambulance waiting times or energy prices are.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
Isn't the Earl Of Chatham Pitt The Elder? I remain of the view that Sunak does want to get things done and is probably more of that mind than concerned with dates. He's also relatively young and could be Prime minister again in the future. The fact that David Cameron is above Peel and Lloyd George on this list tells you it isn't worth much. Longevity is overrated.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
I like how the Wikipedia table linked to let’s you know that Pitt was a Pittite Tory, while Lord North was a Northite one.
To be honest, I don't find that very illuminating of their policies!
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I am an undecided too. I certainly won't be voting Con or REFUK and certainly will vote. I have never missed a chance to vote and won't now. On current polling my constituency is a Lab/Con marginal, but I don't want to vote Labour. Its difficult.
On the other hand if this constituency is marginal, then the Tories face a near armagedon, and Labour don't need my help.
I was chatting to Fox jr2 earlier. He is in a safe seat but can't stomach voting Labour either. Starmer’s lack of support for a Gaza ceasefire is the issue. I have never heard him mention the Israel/Palestine conflict before the current conflict.
I will definitely vote because voting is a privilege which most of the world and the vast majority of humans through history have not enjoyed, and for which many fought in the past.
I'll vote for Lab or LD, whichever I think has the best chance of knocking over this very safe Tory seat.
Imagine this a general election where no one casts a vote....sometimes withdrawing from the process is the only way to say this doesnt work....when you believe the current system is broken how else apart from not voting to you express it?
It depends on what you think doesn't work. Mass not voting suggests to bad actors that they would get along fine without an electorate, and the electorate wish to be disenfranchised. Syria and North Korea come to mind.
If what we need is brighter voters and better candidates, then good and better people standing and voting more brightly would seem the only options. There is no-one apart from the great UK public who can sort that one, by standing and voting.
I think none of it works we need to tear it down and design a system suited for our century not the 18th
If we wanted a genuinely 18th century system of course less than 5% of the population could vote
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
70's were brilliant , you should have grown up in 50's/60's , we did not have a lot beut we had a great life and I loved the 70's as a young man
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Looks like an interesting article on this subject.
"The Seven Laws of Pessimism If life is better than ever before, why does the world seem so depressing? Maarten Boudry"
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
"And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to."
The misogyny on display here is quite something.
Let's ignore for the moment Art. 3 of the ECHR or the Mandela Principles on prisons.
The women prisoners are not even mentioned and the idea that they should have a say or, even, a veto on whether a male offender should be locked up with them simply does not even occur to him. Women prisoners must simply put up with the risk or reality of rape or violence or indecent exposure or voyeurism. Because their rights or views don't matter.
And then @kinabalu has the nerve to say that trans rights are at risk of being rolled back. No they aren't: in this country trans people have exactly the same legal rights as everyone else. There is no political party which has put forward any proposal to remove any of these legal rights. What they do not have and should not have is the right to take away the rights of others - the right of women to single sex spaces, services or associations, for instance. And yet that is the explicit campaigning position of trans activist groups. It is the explicit position of such groups to want the removal of one type of offence of rape - rape by deception. Very progressive, that: wanting to be able to deceive women into sex.
But, hey, who cares about consent!
And what is also very common is those who come out with this totally ignore the court judgments which women have been winning in recent years, funded by endless crowd-funding, to preserve their existing rights. Those judgments are long but are worth reading, especially by those who opine on the law without understanding it, without understanding why ignoring what the law says causes real harm to others and without understanding the reality of what women have endured.
There is something deeply unpleasant about the way in which any woman talking about women's' rights or needs or the reality of what life is like because of their sex is almost always automatically attacked as bigoted or hateful because she does not centre or deem as the only important thing the demands of men.
I expect the usual suspects will do this to me too. But, fuck it, I don't care. Women are not support animals for men. Men's demands are not "rights". Men's feelings are not more important than anyone else's. Women's rights are human rights. Anyone seeking to limit or remove them is not, in any sense, "progressive" or "liberal".
Surely the problem with this rant is it begs the question of whether trans women are women or men. And even if we grant that post-op trans women are women, what about the first day a man dons a frock: when does the transition occur.
And as a practical matter in the context of prison, criminals as a class are not known for their veracity, and there is an incentive for cis men to pretend to be trans women in order to gain access to women's spaces or at least to get a cushier life (whether life in a women's prison is actually better than life in a men's prison is open to doubt but that's another matter).
I would have sympathy with someone who is trans and forced to live in a prison of the opposite gender. The root of the problem is that the whole prison system is a disaster. People are living 2xto a cell, 6.5 sqm big, for 23 out of 24 hours a day, in squalid victorian buildings, with rodents, cockroaches etc. The rest of Europe has moved on but we are stuck in this situation which is basically evidence of civilisation decline.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Looks like an interesting article on this subject.
"The Seven Laws of Pessimism If life is better than ever before, why does the world seem so depressing? Maarten Boudry"
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Chilblains, power cuts, smoking, 3 TV channels, football hooliganism and car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I am an undecided too. I certainly won't be voting Con or REFUK and certainly will vote. I have never missed a chance to vote and won't now. On current polling my constituency is a Lab/Con marginal, but I don't want to vote Labour. Its difficult.
On the other hand if this constituency is marginal, then the Tories face a near armagedon, and Labour don't need my help.
I was chatting to Fox jr2 earlier. He is in a safe seat but can't stomach voting Labour either. Starmer’s lack of support for a Gaza ceasefire is the issue. I have never heard him mention the Israel/Palestine conflict before the current conflict.
I will definitely vote because voting is a privilege which most of the world and the vast majority of humans through history have not enjoyed, and for which many fought in the past.
I'll vote for Lab or LD, whichever I think has the best chance of knocking over this very safe Tory seat.
Imagine this a general election where no one casts a vote....sometimes withdrawing from the process is the only way to say this doesnt work....when you believe the current system is broken how else apart from not voting to you express it?
It depends on what you think doesn't work. Mass not voting suggests to bad actors that they would get along fine without an electorate, and the electorate wish to be disenfranchised. Syria and North Korea come to mind.
If what we need is brighter voters and better candidates, then good and better people standing and voting more brightly would seem the only options. There is no-one apart from the great UK public who can sort that one, by standing and voting.
I think none of it works we need to tear it down and design a system suited for our century not the 18th
If we wanted a genuinely 18th century system of course less than 5% of the population could vote
The voting system encourages exactly the behaviour you are bemoaning. We were spared the worst of it after the 2nd world war because of society's unwritten rules on decency and morality. That's gone now - and it's like telling people playing monopoly not to buy every property they land on.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
But it's not a binary choice.
Take the good stuff from the seventies and keep the good stuff from today. Likewise jettison the bad stuff today and from the seventies.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
But it's not a binary choice.
Take the good stuff from the seventies and keep the good stuff from today. Likewise jettison the bad stuff today and from the seventies.
Which good stuff....no heating, second hand clothes, spam, the bay city rollers, the power cuts, having to fill up on mothers pride to make the food go further? What good stuff from the 70's I don't remember any good stuff just an unremitting grind for most people trying to make the money last
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
But it's not a binary choice.
Take the good stuff from the seventies and keep the good stuff from today. Likewise jettison the bad stuff today and from the seventies.
Put simply, there's a trade-off between solidarity and diversity. It would be nice to have both, but human nature seems to mitigate against it.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
(I agree, btw, that the 70s were pretty shit compared to today.)
From that link:
"By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
It's not too hard to figure out that our current plutocracy is not delivering GDP very well.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
(I agree, btw, that the 70s were pretty shit compared to today.)
From that link:
"By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
It's not too hard to figure out that our current plutocracy is not delivering GDP very well.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Chilblains, power cuts, smoking, 3 TV channels, football hooliganism and car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade.
"car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade"
LUUUXXXRRRRRRY
Most people had to put up with cars that came pre-rusted.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
(I agree, btw, that the 70s were pretty shit compared to today.)
From that link:
"By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
It's not too hard to figure out that our current plutocracy is not delivering GDP very well.
I definitely agree gdp is not be distributed equally for the uk or any country. I am by no means arguing we don't have inequality just mocking the idea we were better off when we had less inequality in the 70's(which we did) so it was better.
I think you take a poor person today and ask them if they would rather have a 70's standard of living than their current one with everyone else going back to a 70's standard of living as well because society would be more equal they would not be taking your offer
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Chilblains, power cuts, smoking, 3 TV channels, football hooliganism and car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade.
"car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade"
LUUUXXXRRRRRRY
Most people had to put up with cars that came pre-rusted.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
(I agree, btw, that the 70s were pretty shit compared to today.)
From that link:
"By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
It's not too hard to figure out that our current plutocracy is not delivering GDP very well.
That's easy to solve. Just get them to leave the country and we would immediately become more equal.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
(I agree, btw, that the 70s were pretty shit compared to today.)
From that link:
"By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
It's not too hard to figure out that our current plutocracy is not delivering GDP very well.
That's easy to solve. Just get them to leave the country and we would immediately become more equal.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
"called for ministers, senior civil servants and other leading figures appointed to lead public bodies to undergo “high quality and mandatory training” on how to behave and uphold standards in public life. Those who refused to take part in training would face sanctions."
And who was on this committee? Well, 2 of its members were Dame Margaret Hodge and Lord Neuberger.
Margaret Hodge: I wonder what standards she upheld when she was in charge of Islington Council and its children's homes became havens for paedophiles who abused children in care and when she then defamed one of the victims, for which she had to apologise. What sanctions did she face? Oh yes- she was made Minister for Children.
As for David Neuberger: until we know precisely what went on regarding his role in seeking to get rid of the trial judge for no good reason in the Bates/Post Office litigation, a period of silence from him on standards in public life would be welcome.
The aim of this committee is very noble but the fact that it includes 2 people whose judgment has been pretty bloody questionable suggests that it too lacks a certain self-awareness. Sinners can often be quite acute about what goes wrong but only if they accept that they have done wrong and are frankly open about their own failings. Precious little sign of it from these two, especially from Lord Neuberger.
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
Multiple reasons and varying from one problem to another.
The world is dynamic, continually changing - this causes problems and these need to be resolved.
And resolved to a level which enough of the population are willing to accept - not a 'perfect solution' which those directly affected might want.
Yes, multiple reasons: David Cameron Theresa May Boris Johnson Liz Truss Rishi Sunak
Things are broken. It is the fault of the Conservative Party. And everyone knows it.
Clearly the most influential politicians this country has ever had as they've managed to break the entire world.
Sir is howling at the moon in denial. The Tories are going to get utterly demolished and rightly so.
I have said I am politically homeless and in our constituency the conservative is going to lose heavily, and as I will not vote Labour my vote at present is heading to the Lib Dems
I will confirm my vote when I have posted my ballot paper ( subject to my successful pacemaker operation next week)
"called for ministers, senior civil servants and other leading figures appointed to lead public bodies to undergo “high quality and mandatory training” on how to behave and uphold standards in public life. Those who refused to take part in training would face sanctions."
And who was on this committee? Well, 2 of its members were Dame Margaret Hodge and Lord Neuberger.
Margaret Hodge: I wonder what standards she upheld when she was in charge of Islington Council and its children's homes became havens for paedophiles who abused children in care and when she then defamed one of the victims, for which she had to apologise. What sanctions did she face? Oh yes- she was made Minister for Children.
As for David Neuberger: until we know precisely what went on regarding his role in seeking to get rid of the trial judge for no good reason in the Bates/Post Office litigation, a period of silence from him on standards in public life would be welcome.
The aim of this committee is very noble but the fact that it includes 2 people whose judgment has been pretty bloody questionable suggests that it too lacks a certain self-awareness. Sinners can often be quite acute about what goes wrong but only if they accept that they have done wrong and are frankly open about their own failings. Precious little sign of it from these two, especially from Lord Neuberger.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Chilblains, power cuts, smoking, 3 TV channels, football hooliganism and car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade.
"car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade"
LUUUXXXRRRRRRY
Most people had to put up with cars that came pre-rusted.
Who can forget the vauxhall viva for example
I remember my parents car being a Hillman Hunter in the 70s and watching the tarmac speed under the floor through the rusting floor.
We had to say 'thank you' to the car when we got home too.
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I can understand why you say that, and feel that way myself at times, but I'll also counter it. The 'state' generally does reasonably well. Things certainly are not as good as they can be thanks to the current government, but we're nowhere near (say) South Africa's levels of chaos. Not that we should be aiming for comparisons that low, but there is a comparison to be made.
Employment is high. The economy is, if not good, not terrible. The bins get collected. Most of us can see a doctor in a reasonable timeframe - for free. Things generally work, albeit somewhat chaotically. The 'state' makes mistakes - but it always has. And there are an awful lot of good workers within, and without, the state; people who work hard and diligently for both themselves and others. Yet we hear about the scoundrels.
Also, I'd say most politicians are good people, albeit flawed, as are we all. Some are sometimes put into positions they do not have the capability to do well, but there are few I would count as truly venal. And some who are absolute stars (IMO George Howarth being one such). But we rarely get to hear about them, as they just get on with their jobs.
I'd also add that I think there are very few states that are doing really well at the moment, particularly of the large economies, and not a single country has zero problems or issues. Neither is it realistic to expect that.
There's no other country I'd prefer to live in, if I was rich, or if I was poor.
I used to be a real w***** when it came to British pride. I would only buy politically British consumer goods including cars, ( wearing a little union flag under the bumper of my new Cologne built Ford Capri. I worshipped the BBC (I detest them now). I hated the notion that foreign asset strippers could defile our industrial crown jewels, and here we are with Tata dismantling our last remaining virgin steel works. Yes, I was a real buyer of pups.
From 2016 I was told by self-styled patriots like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Richard Tice and Arron Banks that people like me were traitors. Some of these people even made their fortunes betting against Britain.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats may be as disastrous as the PB faithful claim, and Starmer and Davey haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, but anything that gets rid of the self-serving grifters who have hijacked my country over the last decade can't come soon enough for me. My expectation however, is through sleight of hand or good fortune they will once again prevail, and take our once great nation further down the road to ruin.
I'm unsure quite what that's got to do with my post. I'm not talking about 'British pride'; but neither am I interested in 'British shame'. We're far from perfect, and I doubt I've ever suggested otherwise. We can improve a great deal - and hopefully the next (Labour) government will make progress.
But to listen to some people, you'd think we all lived in hovels with outside toilets, no running water and electricity powered by methane piped in from the local urchin farm. That there was mass unemployment and a gunman on every street corner.
That isn't a reason to vote Conservative, or indeed for anyone; just that people who are constantly utterly negative have probably lost all perspective.
Let me put it this way; one of the reasons the Post Office scandal has eventually struck the public's consciousness so strongly is that it seems so utterly against the way we think things should work in this country. And rightly so. But in many, many countries, what happened - and worse - would be accepted with a shrug and be seen as utterly unnoteworthy - "it's the way things are done."
We should not try to change that.
I suspect we are mostly on PB in the luxurious position of living in expensive, and comfortable homes. We are fortunate.
I have seen for myself (my wife was involved in parent and child foster caring for a number of years) and I saw poverty of an order I had no idea existed. We have ex-servicemen living in tents that Suella Braverman wanted to remove from them. We have families dispossessed of their homes and sent to local authority emergency accomodation. We live in a society that it more inequitable than it was a decade ago. To drive such inequality further is immoral. Maybe Labour can't do anything about it. The Conservatives on the other hand won't even try.
One nation feudal Tories in this iteration of the Conservative Party are a thing of the past.
I used to support the Tories, because the Tories used to believe in fixing such problems in society. The difference between Labour and Tories not being intention, but methods.
Problem is the Tories have been hijacked by shitheads who want to treat houses as commodities to be sweated for wealth and income, rather than affordable for people who want and need somewhere of their own to live.
The Tories will be worth voting for only if they change their spots, and once more have a leader who can say (and more importantly believe and follow through on) the following:
I am much nearer to creating one nation than Labour will ever be. Socialism is two nations. The privileged rulers, and everyone else. And it always gets to that. What I am desperately trying to do is create one nation with everyone being a man of property, or having the opportunity to be a man of property.
Or: I want a capital-earning democracy. Every man and woman a capitalist. Housing is the start. If you're a man or woman of property, you've got something. So every man a capitalist, and every man a man of property.
Say that is what you desire to many Tories today, and they'll accuse you of being a socialist.
For me the current generation of senior Tories also need to change their souls.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Chilblains, power cuts, smoking, 3 TV channels, football hooliganism and car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade.
"car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade"
LUUUXXXRRRRRRY
Most people had to put up with cars that came pre-rusted.
Actually rather better by the 70s. Few of the British cars of the 60s lasted anywhere near so long. I remember a Vauxhall Viva which lasted about three years.
So what happened is that a problem arose and it was resolved.
The problem gets the media reports but its solving doesn't.
Good news doesn't sell papers.
So let's accept that 'nothing works, everything is broken' is wrong, it should be: 'lots of stuff that should work, that used to work, doesn't'.
Management of Pension Credit is one niche example: The Pension Service don't have enough staff (apparently) to review Pension Credit payments where the recipient has increased their income or assets and should no longer qualify for PC, so the state carries on paying them when they are no longer eligible.
Some others are: - Ambulances - awful response times. - Armed forces - not enough staff to crew the Navy's ships. - Education - where to begin. - Councils - going bust and cutting services left, right and centre. - Justice - huge lead times for court cases. - Immigration service - losing track of immigrants, slow processing times.
I could go on...
Sure it is not all broken but overall, things have gone backwards in recent years.
Some things have gone backwards and some things have improved.
We all know which gets the media attention.
And why have the things that have gone backwards gone backwards ?
Multiple reasons and varying from one problem to another.
The world is dynamic, continually changing - this causes problems and these need to be resolved.
And resolved to a level which enough of the population are willing to accept - not a 'perfect solution' which those directly affected might want.
Yes, multiple reasons: David Cameron Theresa May Boris Johnson Liz Truss Rishi Sunak
Things are broken. It is the fault of the Conservative Party. And everyone knows it.
Clearly the most influential politicians this country has ever had as they've managed to break the entire world.
Sir is howling at the moon in denial. The Tories are going to get utterly demolished and rightly so.
In denial about what ?
The Conservatives are going to lose and rightly so.
But this country isn't broken - it has its problems as it always has done and as other countries do. And these problems will be dealt with one way or another as they always have been. Not to everyone's satisfaction but they rarely are.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
All that sounds like 2023, not 1973!
Rail strikes start again tomorrow, affecting NINE days of travel!
Isn't the Earl Of Chatham Pitt The Elder? I remain of the view that Sunak does want to get things done and is probably more of that mind than concerned with dates. He's also relatively young and could be Prime minister again in the future. The fact that David Cameron is above Peel and Lloyd George on this list tells you it isn't worth much. Longevity is overrated.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
We don't really give political leaders do overs anymore. Corbyn managed it by exceeding expectations. Sunak is going to have his political career essentially done inside 10 years of entering parliament - whether he even makes it to ten years will depend on if he sticks around long after quitting as leader later this year.
Sunak may want to get things done but he doesn't seem very urgent about it, or if he is he is unable to, as the party looks completely paralysed and confused.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Lucky to have a swimming pool. Many are closing.
Lucky for us - our local swimming pool was closed down in the 80s after continual untreated cockroach infestations.
When I moved to Glasgow the nearby Victorian baths were shut down by the council leading to near civil unrest. I can still remember watching the police horses charging people down for wanting somewhere to swim.
Probably commies. Not even lodge members. Imagine.
Unfortunately, having your passport renewed is a bit of a first world problem.
I totally agree but it does demonstrate that the government isn't incapable of fixing things, and that government IT projects do quite often work well. The HMRC, DVLA, HMPO and probably some other departments all have effective online services that have made some of the necessary administrative procedures of modern life simpler and faster.
"called for ministers, senior civil servants and other leading figures appointed to lead public bodies to undergo “high quality and mandatory training” on how to behave and uphold standards in public life. Those who refused to take part in training would face sanctions."
And who was on this committee? Well, 2 of its members were Dame Margaret Hodge and Lord Neuberger.
Margaret Hodge: I wonder what standards she upheld when she was in charge of Islington Council and its children's homes became havens for paedophiles who abused children in care and when she then defamed one of the victims, for which she had to apologise. What sanctions did she face? Oh yes- she was made Minister for Children.
As for David Neuberger: until we know precisely what went on regarding his role in seeking to get rid of the trial judge for no good reason in the Bates/Post Office litigation, a period of silence from him on standards in public life would be welcome.
The aim of this committee is very noble but the fact that it includes 2 people whose judgment has been pretty bloody questionable suggests that it too lacks a certain self-awareness. Sinners can often be quite acute about what goes wrong but only if they accept that they have done wrong and are frankly open about their own failings. Precious little sign of it from these two, especially from Lord Neuberger.
You've given me flashbacks now.
Local "don't go there" house which "went on fire". The local police kept the fire brigade outside while they carted (like wheel-barrows-full) files and photographs out of the house. Only then were the fire brigade allowed to start saving it and the neighbouring houses.
It 100% wasn't reported to my 100% not a policeman father that said house was home to a 'councillor friendly' paedophile.
"If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
Isn't the Earl Of Chatham Pitt The Elder? I remain of the view that Sunak does want to get things done and is probably more of that mind than concerned with dates. He's also relatively young and could be Prime minister again in the future. The fact that David Cameron is above Peel and Lloyd George on this list tells you it isn't worth much. Longevity is overrated.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
We don't really give political leaders do overs anymore. Corbyn managed it by exceeding expectations. Sunak is going to have his political career essentially done inside 10 years of entering parliament - whether he even makes it to ten years will depend on if he sticks around long after quitting as leader later this year.
Sunak may want to get things done but he doesn't seem very urgent about it, or if he is he is unable to, as the party looks completely paralysed and confused.
He is very young for an ex Prime minister. They all have a tendency to leave Parliament nowadays but if he were to stay who knows what the future might bring?
Isn't the Earl Of Chatham Pitt The Elder? I remain of the view that Sunak does want to get things done and is probably more of that mind than concerned with dates. He's also relatively young and could be Prime minister again in the future. The fact that David Cameron is above Peel and Lloyd George on this list tells you it isn't worth much. Longevity is overrated.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
We don't really give political leaders do overs anymore. Corbyn managed it by exceeding expectations. Sunak is going to have his political career essentially done inside 10 years of entering parliament - whether he even makes it to ten years will depend on if he sticks around long after quitting as leader later this year.
Sunak may want to get things done but he doesn't seem very urgent about it, or if he is he is unable to, as the party looks completely paralysed and confused.
He is very young for an ex Prime minister. They all have a tendency to leave Parliament nowadays but if he were to stay who knows what the future might bring?
I don't see him sticking around to discuss potholes at constituency surgeries.
Weirdly this evening I have purchased no fewer than NINE Coop Pizzas Magharita for 79p each, down from about a fiver. Not the best, but pleasant when cooked at 500C, and nice pizza bases in the freezer ready to have other toppings added, especially from the Polish shop salami counter.
My local coop is currently having the sort of problems with "Stonebaked Pizza" oversupply they used to have with Smoked Salmon.
The staff confirm that head office just keep sending crazy quantities. There is a stack of a couple of dozen sourdough pizzas that will be coming up tomorrow or Tuesday.
It feels as if a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle is in the machine, and has caused the computer to have a fit.
Not a patch on my homemade pizzas, or probably the ones from @MaxPB2 's £6,000 made-in-Yorkshite pizza oven, but useful.
Isn't the Earl Of Chatham Pitt The Elder? I remain of the view that Sunak does want to get things done and is probably more of that mind than concerned with dates. He's also relatively young and could be Prime minister again in the future. The fact that David Cameron is above Peel and Lloyd George on this list tells you it isn't worth much. Longevity is overrated.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
We don't really give political leaders do overs anymore. Corbyn managed it by exceeding expectations. Sunak is going to have his political career essentially done inside 10 years of entering parliament - whether he even makes it to ten years will depend on if he sticks around long after quitting as leader later this year.
Sunak may want to get things done but he doesn't seem very urgent about it, or if he is he is unable to, as the party looks completely paralysed and confused.
Sunak's basic problem in terms of having a future - which has been a problem as PM - is that he doesn't really fit with any of the courses the Tory Party could take. He's not a right-wing headbanger who can keep bashing away at reality as it makes its populist turn. Nor is he the kind of One Nation Tory who could, when the party got tired of losing and tearing itself to shreds, do the mea culpas and rebranding that would win back more liberal Britons who previously weren't averse to voting Conservative in large numbers.
Outside of him being the last man standing who could take forward the last threadbare bits of this government's agenda, there really isn't much point to him. Unless you're looking for an even less popular right-wing version of Ed Miliband. 'Sunakism' - being pretty right-wing but doing it with managerialism rather than populist snakeoil - doesn't have much of a constituency outside of Spectator garden parties.
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I can understand why you say that, and feel that way myself at times, but I'll also counter it. The 'state' generally does reasonably well. Things certainly are not as good as they can be thanks to the current government, but we're nowhere near (say) South Africa's levels of chaos. Not that we should be aiming for comparisons that low, but there is a comparison to be made.
Employment is high. The economy is, if not good, not terrible. The bins get collected. Most of us can see a doctor in a reasonable timeframe - for free. Things generally work, albeit somewhat chaotically. The 'state' makes mistakes - but it always has. And there are an awful lot of good workers within, and without, the state; people who work hard and diligently for both themselves and others. Yet we hear about the scoundrels.
Also, I'd say most politicians are good people, albeit flawed, as are we all. Some are sometimes put into positions they do not have the capability to do well, but there are few I would count as truly venal. And some who are absolute stars (IMO George Howarth being one such). But we rarely get to hear about them, as they just get on with their jobs.
I'd also add that I think there are very few states that are doing really well at the moment, particularly of the large economies, and not a single country has zero problems or issues. Neither is it realistic to expect that.
There's no other country I'd prefer to live in, if I was rich, or if I was poor.
I used to be a real w***** when it came to British pride. I would only buy politically British consumer goods including cars, ( wearing a little union flag under the bumper of my new Cologne built Ford Capri. I worshipped the BBC (I detest them now). I hated the notion that foreign asset strippers could defile our industrial crown jewels, and here we are with Tata dismantling our last remaining virgin steel works. Yes, I was a real buyer of pups.
From 2016 I was told by self-styled patriots like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Richard Tice and Arron Banks that people like me were traitors. Some of these people even made their fortunes betting against Britain.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats may be as disastrous as the PB faithful claim, and Starmer and Davey haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, but anything that gets rid of the self-serving grifters who have hijacked my country over the last decade can't come soon enough for me. My expectation however, is through sleight of hand or good fortune they will once again prevail, and take our once great nation further down the road to ruin.
I had one of those Ford Capris. OMG, The roadholding! Even @Dura_Ace would have left shit stains on the drivers seat!
They were basically a Mk.2 Cortina from the B-Pillar back so leaf spring/live axle and all of the massive unsprung weight that implies. My mate had a 1.3 XFlow variant in Baby Shit Bronze that we crashed somewhere near Osmotherly.
I don't recall it being particularly frightening, maybe because it had so little power. It was certainly crude compared the Manta but outsold it at least 20:1.
The worst thing about the Capri that I drove 40 years ago was pulling out of blind corners. The bonnet was so long that it made for guesswork.
The Post Office scandal - on top of many others - has so severely dented my belief in the capacity or willingness of the state or its institutions, including the legal system, to avoid doing harm or put right its mistakes, that I seriously wonder whether there is any point to politics at all.
Why should I trust the state when I see how badly it behaves? Why should I bother doing the right thing when it does not even try to do likewise? When those who behave like scoundrels are rewarded and praised? And the rest of us treated like mugs?
I will not be voting for the Tories. But as of now I am disinclined to vote for anyone at all. They all seem rotten, self-serving and incompetent. They have done a great deal to break the bonds of trust which should exist in a well-ordered society. They are doing very little to earn it, to earn mine anyway. Until they do, I am not at all inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They either don't want my vote or take me for granted. So, frankly, they can fuck right off and come back when they have learnt as a bare minimum how to behave with a modicum of integrity, competence and basic decency.
I can understand why you say that, and feel that way myself at times, but I'll also counter it. The 'state' generally does reasonably well. Things certainly are not as good as they can be thanks to the current government, but we're nowhere near (say) South Africa's levels of chaos. Not that we should be aiming for comparisons that low, but there is a comparison to be made.
Employment is high. The economy is, if not good, not terrible. The bins get collected. Most of us can see a doctor in a reasonable timeframe - for free. Things generally work, albeit somewhat chaotically. The 'state' makes mistakes - but it always has. And there are an awful lot of good workers within, and without, the state; people who work hard and diligently for both themselves and others. Yet we hear about the scoundrels.
Also, I'd say most politicians are good people, albeit flawed, as are we all. Some are sometimes put into positions they do not have the capability to do well, but there are few I would count as truly venal. And some who are absolute stars (IMO George Howarth being one such). But we rarely get to hear about them, as they just get on with their jobs.
I'd also add that I think there are very few states that are doing really well at the moment, particularly of the large economies, and not a single country has zero problems or issues. Neither is it realistic to expect that.
There's no other country I'd prefer to live in, if I was rich, or if I was poor.
I used to be a real w***** when it came to British pride. I would only buy politically British consumer goods including cars, ( wearing a little union flag under the bumper of my new Cologne built Ford Capri. I worshipped the BBC (I detest them now). I hated the notion that foreign asset strippers could defile our industrial crown jewels, and here we are with Tata dismantling our last remaining virgin steel works. Yes, I was a real buyer of pups.
From 2016 I was told by self-styled patriots like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Richard Tice and Arron Banks that people like me were traitors. Some of these people even made their fortunes betting against Britain.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats may be as disastrous as the PB faithful claim, and Starmer and Davey haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, but anything that gets rid of the self-serving grifters who have hijacked my country over the last decade can't come soon enough for me. My expectation however, is through sleight of hand or good fortune they will once again prevail, and take our once great nation further down the road to ruin.
I had one of those Ford Capris. OMG, The roadholding! Even @Dura_Ace would have left shit stains on the drivers seat!
They were basically a Mk.2 Cortina from the B-Pillar back so leaf spring/live axle and all of the massive unsprung weight that implies. My mate had a 1.3 XFlow variant in Baby Shit Bronze that we crashed somewhere near Osmotherly.
I don't recall it being particularly frightening, maybe because it had so little power. It was certainly crude compared the Manta but outsold it at least 20:1.
I had Mk IIIs. I believe they had jettisoned the cart springs by then, although the handling was still very poor. The torque through the back wheels of the 280 meant axle-tramp at the lights with the rear wheels keen to overtake the front. It was a handful, but quite fun in the dry. With wide alloys and Pirelli P6000 rubber band tyres it was awful, dangerous in fact, in the wet.
Suspension on all rear wheel drive Fords without any exception whatsover: spawn of the devil.
Our family had - briefly - one of those Ford Cortina Mk IIIs with the bent-forward front corners, in dark green.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Plus frequent strikes, inefficient nationalised industry, sky high top tax rates and inflation even higher than now
I am all for decreasing inequality but those that hold up the 70's as less unequal betray themselves...they would prefer less inequality even if mades all lives pretty shitty to what we have now. I suspect if we compared the lives of most in the 70's to todays poverty standards then about 80% of families then lived in poverty.
Those aren't the only alternatives, though. There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
(I agree, btw, that the 70s were pretty shit compared to today.)
From that link:
"By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
It's not too hard to figure out that our current plutocracy is not delivering GDP very well.
I definitely agree gdp is not be distributed equally for the uk or any country. I am by no means arguing we don't have inequality just mocking the idea we were better off when we had less inequality in the 70's(which we did) so it was better.
I think you take a poor person today and ask them if they would rather have a 70's standard of living than their current one with everyone else going back to a 70's standard of living as well because society would be more equal they would not be taking your offer
Yes, and we are all better off than Henry VIII because he did not have a mobile phone.
One thing about the 1970s is that most families had a single breadwinner. That is barely feasible today except among the highest earners.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Lucky to have a swimming pool. Many are closing.
We've done Ashfield politics today.
We have done reasonably well from the Towns Fund, which may distract from but does not address the salami slicing of the public realm and the butt-sitting on everything from tax reform to social care.
Things that *have* been done by Ashfield Independents over the last few years have been three new or newly invested in leisure centres (Kirkby, Sutton, Huthwaite), a new Sherwood Observatory / Planetarium (really), a big Adventure-based Youth Resource (that may have been done by County) and a Rugby Centre helped by Section 106 money.
It doesn't help with the bigger issues though, which is what will kebab the Tories Nationally, and the crimes of Zadrozny / Hollis may do for the AIs.
I look forward to a possible byelection in 2025 if Z wins then gets >1 year inside.
I’ve started watching Billions again, after stopping at the end of S5. I’m ok without Axe, but just remembered the thing that slightly bugged me about it… and it is a thing… forced similies
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Lucky to have a swimming pool. Many are closing.
We've done Ashfield politics today.
We have done reasonably well from the Towns Fund, which may distract from but does not address the salami slicing of the public realm and the butt-sitting on everything from tax reform to social care.
Things that *have* been done by Ashfield Independents over the last few years have been three new or newly invested in leisure centres (Kirkby, Sutton, Huthwaite), a new Sherwood Observatory / Planetarium (really), a big Adventure-based Youth Resource (that may have been done by County) and a Rugby Centre helped by Section 106 money.
It doesn't help with the bigger issues though, which is what will kebab the Tories Nationally, and the crimes of Zadrozny / Hollis may do for the AIs.
I look forward to a possible byelection in 2025 if Z wins then gets >1 year inside.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
You may have escaped the poverty cycle, but there are plenty who have found themselves back inside it.
No one is demanding the trade off for quality schools,housing and healthcare is a return to no central heating, and rattling windows and doors.
We were leaner, fitter and hardier than youngsters are today from our Spam fritters and mash.
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Chilblains, power cuts, smoking, 3 TV channels, football hooliganism and car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade.
"car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade"
LUUUXXXRRRRRRY
Most people had to put up with cars that came pre-rusted.
Who can forget the vauxhall viva for example
I remember my parents car being a Hillman Hunter in the 70s and watching the tarmac speed under the floor through the rusting floor.
We had to say 'thank you' to the car when we got home too.
I remember travelling in a Hillman Imp. The driver had to drop it into first to get up a hill.
"Labour suspends Kate Osamor over Gaza comments in Holocaust message Party investigating MP for Edmonton after she said Gaza should be remembered as genocide on memorial day"
For those saying the 70's were better fuck were they. I grew up in the 70's I never got new clothes neither did anyone I knew they were picked up in jumble sales and constantly patched. The house had no central heating nor double glazing and we all huddled round the fire in the living room. A couple of slices of spam or luncheon meat with some mash was our evening meal. Yeah take us back to the 70's because we would all love that. For a treat we would get taken to the local swimming pool which was outside and unheated and that wasnt even a monthly treat.
Later generations would have a fit
Chilblains, power cuts, smoking, 3 TV channels, football hooliganism and car bodyworks which rotted away within a decade.
Whereas now we have a return to measles, scurvy and rickets. The power companies install meters that automatically cut the power to the poorest households. The output from three free channels was better than today's output from 300 free channels. Only yesterday in the Black Country FA Cup derby, the Baggies and the Dingles were kicking lumps out of each other. And whilst your Lancia Beta1600 GTE registered on August the 1st 1976 would have been no more than ferrous oxide on your drive by July 31st 1977, it looked better than a Nissan Juke!
When I was at school we had the working poor. They were my school friends. They lived in good quality local authority housing, they had free health care, the school dentist, local authority swimming pools, libraries, school libraries, an equitable education system, free school meals, playgrounds, playing fields, subsidised works canteens, affordable public transport and public utilities that did their best not to cut off late payers. Bosses who's salary was a few notches up from the workers as opposed to now when Captains of Industry have earned the average salary by the 10th of January.
Yes at the time we were the sick man of Europe, but we were also a fairer, happier society. The right of centre argument is all this "free" stuff is unsustainable. I would warrant the average FTSE CEO earning 30 pr 40 times the average salary is even more unsustainable. And I repeat, people like Robert Jenrick and Braverman couldn't give two hoots for the welfare of British citizens, they are too busy feathering their own meaningless ambitions. What kind of moral vacuum paints over Disney characters at a children's asylum centre, or removes tents from destitute PTSD suffering ex-soldiers?
This. This. Many times. This.
(@Fairliered have I correctly attributed you here? I may have messed up the nesting)
Comments
But, there is quite literally no fucker else to do it.
And then there is no teacher for my classes.
It breaks my heart and spikes my anxiety, but I will keep children safe if it kills me.
The sprinting from the school gates to the main road almost did.
What would be good would be if other bits of the deal, for example the processes of money passing from government to individual, or accessing the NHS, or ringing someone in government up, or discovering how to email them, or getting a reply, were rendered as simple as doling out tax to them.
When I was at school we had the working poor. They were my school friends. They lived in good quality local authority housing, they had free health care, the school dentist, local authority swimming pools, libraries, school libraries, an equitable education system, free school meals, playgrounds, playing fields, subsidised works canteens, affordable public transport and public utilities that did their best not to cut off late payers. Bosses who's salary was a few notches up from the workers as opposed to now when Captains of Industry
have earned the average salary by the 10th of January.
Yes at the time we were the sick man of Europe, but we were also a fairer, happier society. The right of centre argument is all this "free" stuff is unsustainable. I would warrant the average FTSE CEO earning 30 pr 40 times the average salary is even more unsustainable. And I repeat, people like Robert Jenrick and Braverman couldn't give two hoots for the welfare of British citizens, they are too busy feathering their own meaningless ambitions. What kind of moral vacuum paints over Disney characters at a children's asylum centre, or removes tents from destitute PTSD suffering ex-soldiers?
Back in the 1980s I worked for a firm whose skilled engineers were paid what was called Star Rate. Less skilled engineers earned 10% less. Senior engineers earned 10% more. Owner directors were paid double Star Rate. The company was 100% employee owned. Then they allowed accountants in …. 😡
The White House Medical Unit had “severe and systemic problems” with their pharmacy operations and provided health care to ineligible staffers before the Biden administration, according to a scathing inspector general report.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1751632566245851158
Something like 50 - 60% of all trans prisoners who are male (claiming to be females) in U.K. prisons have been convicted of sexual violence against women or children.
Do you have any idea how frightening it is for women to be locked up with such men?
In 2021 an English court ruled that women would just have to live with this.
And yet we have people on here claiming that we are better than third world countries. Well, a country which thinks it acceptable for a woman to have to put up with rape or the fear of it to assuage a man's feelings is not, frankly, in a particularly strong position to lecture third world countries.
Call it a rant if you want. I know what rape means. I buried the experience after it happened but decades later that court judgment "triggered" me. How dare the state treat vulnerable marginalised women in its care in such a way.
so a trans man,
no matter how muscled,
no matter how bearded,
no matter how pumped full of testosterone,
no matter how sexually attracted to women,
always belongs in a women's prison, or other women-only space? OK?
1) Tear down old system
2) ?
3) Have great new system.
What could possibly not work in this plan.
Charles Grey would be a much better role model. PM for less than four years yet he had two monumental achievements. Does anyone care about Lord Liverpool nowadays? Lord Salisbury has his fans but he's 'dead' in terms of public opinion.
There are other externalities which were the gift of the government. Public sector financial impropriety (including PPE fraud) and dare I say it Brexit are owned by the Tories.
Women do need protection from men.
If somebody born female wants to be imprisoned with men, there's no reason not to respect that choice.
If somebody born male wants to be imprisoned with women, there is a reason not to respect that choice.
Same goes for sport and other safeguarding issues too.
Will Trump 2.0's manic "drill baby, drill" be a mistake with a good chunk of indie swing voters who can feel their own climate?
I do think (and I am happy to be told different) that these things taken together mean such a person would be an appropriate candidate for a womens' prison all other things being equal (ie. not a nutter, not in for violent crimes). The cut-off point is the cut-off point.
Therefore, a former woman who had had surgery to gain male genitals would not be a suitable person for a womens' prison.
Later generations would have a fit
"The unfashionable victims of the Post Office scandal
The injustice suffered by ordinary folk from small towns often fails to move the political class."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/09/the-unfashionable-victims-of-the-post-office-scandal/
Its the greed, hypocrisy and self-obsessed immaturity of Conservative politicians which drives the hostility towards them not what ambulance waiting times or energy prices are.
@MeghanMcCain
·
5h
Hahahahahahahaha - Kari Lake getting booed by the Arizona GOP is hilarious.
https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1751655650474459275
"The Seven Laws of Pessimism
If life is better than ever before, why does the world seem so depressing?
Maarten Boudry"
https://quillette.com/2024/01/26/the-seven-laws-of-pessimism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleury-Mérogis_Prison
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/07/la-sante-prison-paris-visitors-welcome
There are developed nations with similar per capita GDP to us which are significantly less unequal.
Take the good stuff from the seventies and keep the good stuff from today. Likewise jettison the bad stuff today and from the seventies.
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
(I agree, btw, that the 70s were pretty shit compared to today.)
"By 2023, the richest 50 families in the UK held more wealth than half of the UK population, comprising 33.5 million people. If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP."
It's not too hard to figure out that our current plutocracy is not delivering GDP very well.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/35-under-35-sunday-times-rich-list-bmfxj9w9g
LUUUXXXRRRRRRY
Most people had to put up with cars that came pre-rusted.
I think you take a poor person today and ask them if they would rather have a 70's standard of living than their current one with everyone else going back to a 70's standard of living as well because society would be more equal they would not be taking your offer
1st
Churchill
Gladstone
Walpole
Pitt the Younger
Lloyd George
2nd
Peel
Disraeli
Attlee
Thatcher
Palmerston
Grey
3rd
Asquith
Baldwin
Salisbury
Pitt The Elder
Since 1980, the share of income earned by the top 1% in the UK has generally been rising, peaking at 14.7% in 2007 before the financial crisis.
And wealth equality peaked in 1990 - council house RTB a factor there I guess.
But there's really little difference in wealth and income inequality between the UK and similar countries.
The most surprising things to me was how high wealth inequality is in both Sweden and Ireland.
A Grieve-led committee which has -
"called for ministers, senior civil servants and other leading figures appointed to lead public bodies to undergo “high quality and mandatory training” on how to behave and uphold standards in public life. Those who refused to take part in training would face sanctions."
And who was on this committee? Well, 2 of its members were Dame Margaret Hodge and Lord Neuberger.
Margaret Hodge: I wonder what standards she upheld when she was in charge of Islington Council and its children's homes became havens for paedophiles who abused children in care and when she then defamed one of the victims, for which she had to apologise. What sanctions did she face? Oh yes- she was made Minister for Children.
As for David Neuberger: until we know precisely what went on regarding his role in seeking to get rid of the trial judge for no good reason in the Bates/Post Office litigation, a period of silence from him on standards in public life would be welcome.
The aim of this committee is very noble but the fact that it includes 2 people whose judgment has been pretty bloody questionable suggests that it too lacks a certain self-awareness. Sinners can often be quite acute about what goes wrong but only if they accept that they have done wrong and are frankly open about their own failings. Precious little sign of it from these two, especially from Lord Neuberger.
I will confirm my vote when I have posted my ballot paper ( subject to my successful pacemaker operation next week)
We had to say 'thank you' to the car when we got home too.
I remember a Vauxhall Viva which lasted about three years.
The Conservatives are going to lose and rightly so.
But this country isn't broken - it has its problems as it always has done and as other countries do. And these problems will be dealt with one way or another as they always have been. Not to everyone's satisfaction but they rarely are.
Sunak may want to get things done but he doesn't seem very urgent about it, or if he is he is unable to, as the party looks completely paralysed and confused.
When I moved to Glasgow the nearby Victorian baths were shut down by the council leading to near civil unrest. I can still remember watching the police horses charging people down for wanting somewhere to swim.
Probably commies. Not even lodge members. Imagine.
This is interesting: apparently you shouldn't use "nous" anymore in spoken French.
"Why You Should Never Say “Nous” in Spoken French: Part 2 (Improve Your French Fluency)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPxygbD_RrQ
We can dream !
Local "don't go there" house which "went on fire". The local police kept the fire brigade outside while they carted (like wheel-barrows-full) files and photographs out of the house. Only then were the fire brigade allowed to start saving it and the neighbouring houses.
It 100% wasn't reported to my 100% not a policeman father that said house was home to a 'councillor friendly' paedophile.
It's no wonder the Red Riding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Riding) show struck such a chord with me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68123202
Disposable vapes are set to be banned as part of plans to tackle the rising number of young people taking up vaping, the government says.
My local coop is currently having the sort of problems with "Stonebaked Pizza" oversupply they used to have with Smoked Salmon.
The staff confirm that head office just keep sending crazy quantities. There is a stack of a couple of dozen sourdough pizzas that will be coming up tomorrow or Tuesday.
It feels as if a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle is in the machine, and has caused the computer to have a fit.
Not a patch on my homemade pizzas, or probably the ones from @MaxPB2 's £6,000 made-in-Yorkshite pizza oven, but useful.
Need a gross of tins of pineapple chunks.
Outside of him being the last man standing who could take forward the last threadbare bits of this government's agenda, there really isn't much point to him. Unless you're looking for an even less popular right-wing version of Ed Miliband. 'Sunakism' - being pretty right-wing but doing it with managerialism rather than populist snakeoil - doesn't have much of a constituency outside of Spectator garden parties.
Our family had - briefly - one of those Ford Cortina Mk IIIs with the bent-forward front corners, in dark green.
Am I prejudiced on this? You bet.
One thing about the 1970s is that most families had a single breadwinner. That is barely feasible today except among the highest earners.
We have done reasonably well from the Towns Fund, which may distract from but does not address the salami slicing of the public realm and the butt-sitting on everything from tax reform to social care.
Things that *have* been done by Ashfield Independents over the last few years have been three new or newly invested in leisure centres (Kirkby, Sutton, Huthwaite), a new Sherwood Observatory / Planetarium (really), a big Adventure-based Youth Resource (that may have been done by County) and a Rugby Centre helped by Section 106 money.
It doesn't help with the bigger issues though, which is what will kebab the Tories Nationally, and the crimes of Zadrozny / Hollis may do for the AIs.
I look forward to a possible byelection in 2025 if Z wins then gets >1 year inside.
https://www.theringer.com/tv/2019/6/7/18656652/billions-season-4-finale-similes
No one is demanding the trade off for quality schools,housing and healthcare is a return to no central heating, and rattling windows and doors.
We were leaner, fitter and hardier than youngsters are today from our Spam fritters and mash.
It cost a total of £25.
We ran it into the ground for a year and then sold it.
For £50.
Party investigating MP for Edmonton after she said Gaza should be remembered as genocide on memorial day"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/28/labour-suspends-kate-osamor-over-gaza-comments-in-holocaust-message
(@Fairliered have I correctly attributed you here? I may have messed up the nesting)
There's always March 2030 (5 years and six weeks after 23/01/25)