With that team it shouldn't take long to put together a manifesto appealing to their core vote.
As an aside, should they manage to get an MP elected, would that be the first time that a member answerable to a limited company was elected to the Mother of Parliaments?
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
Mr R rightly makes the point that 10% deposits need saving for, and on a £250k house …..normal, it seems in N Essex for a 2 bed …… that means saving £25,000. That’s not easy.
Agree but nowadays they beg it off their parents.
That's a problem is it not?
I didn't, but it took many years of us both saving to get enough.
Wages haven't kept up with house prices, if they had it would be a wash and not a problem, but they're down substantially which is a bad thing.
It will take many years of house prices falls and/or wage inflation and stationary prices to restore balance.
Back in the late 60’s I bought a house, and needed a loan to tide me over while I sold my first one. The bank manager said that he wasn’t sure about the price; £14,000 seemed a lot. We lived there 20 years, then moved to where we are now. I’ve just looked it up on Zoopla; it’s been sold again for £715,000
Utter insanity. And wages aren't up fifty fold to compensate.
Any correction to the market will take massive negative equity or rampant inflation. Or both.
Easiest solution would be to not start here, but that's not an option.
The cost of servicing a mortgage, is perhaps a better indicator than the headline house price, but the trend line has still been sharply one way since about 1992.
The only solution is to build literally millions more houses.
I'm not sure that simply building millions of houses will necessarily be a complete solution, though it might be desirable in and of itself if good houses are built.
Where you live and the housing you live in is likely to be one of the major determinants of people's quality of life. So it follows that people will dedicate a large proportion of their income to maximising the quality of housing that they live in. So you might expect that a lot of people will always buy the most expensive housing they can afford, and so housing costs will still dominate personal expenditure.
You might also consider restricting mortgage lending as a way of reducing the amount of money that is being used to bid up the price of housing. If you could also do something to make other investments a relatively better option for people then you would also reduce the amount of investment capital being poured into housing (and hopefully that investment capital would find a home somewhere that would increase productivity in the economy).
It seems like you could end up with lower house prices, and more owner-occupiers, with the same housing stock that we have today. Though there are lots of other good reasons for building new houses.
Building millions of houses is necessary, but not sufficient.
There needs to be a post-WWII-scale effort that includes cheap rental and purchase options, likely modern pre-fab construction, and with loans underwritten by government.
It seems that there is a need way beyond what the immigration figures suggest. As a nation we're definitely not breeding like rabbits.
I suspect that there are a huge number of people living in the UK that aren't counted in the measures used. In London it's often hard to hear English being spoken, and many tradespeople (those that actually do the jobs) don't speak English at all.
Oh, why can't the English learn to set A good example to people whose English is painful to your ears? The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears. There even are places where English completely Disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years!
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
I haven't seen your reply yet to my earlier slightly blunt skepticism, but I'll say I agree with your comment here.
IMO the issue for Mr Cameron is building a real bridge between rhetoric and delivery, and his questionable record around doing that when in the top job.
Just realised that in ten days I'll be in the air heading to Santiago de Compostela from Stansted
I've had a really tough stint at work. Last day off was Easter Monday, and I've worked eighty one hours in the eight days since
I've also had some quite fun holiday related coincidences..
There are two streets on my route named after Saints. On the first, a thirty house street, there's a couple I get on really well with. The wife told me yesterday that her cousin is doing the Camino at the same time as me, but in the right direction, so we might cross paths
On the second Saint street, which has just five houses, there's a couple who have done the first two stages of the Camino over the last two years' Spring holidays, and are doing the final stage to Santiago at the same time that I start. I might well also bump into them
In the same FIVE HOUSE street there's another couple I get on well with. Her daughter lives just outside Pamplona, the last city en route to France, and has rooms she rents out. I've been given her contact details; she's been told about my adventure and is really hoping that I'll be able to stay a night at hers
All from the only thirty five houses on Saint streets, out of nearly a thousand houses, on my route
When I read the book and watched the original series of "The Handmaid's Tale", despite the fine book/series that it is, the only point where I had really had to suspend belief was the necessity to dismiss the implausibility that a small covert group of extremists could somehow stage a coup d'etat and take control of the USA by force.
Unfortunately, if Margaret Attwood were writing the book today, she would now have available to her a much more plausible scenario that led saw the accession to power of extremists who were able to overturn democratic institutions once in power. All the ingredients are there - the new populist politics that has emerged on the back of social media and the emergence of a figure able to exploit them, the luck of being faced with a geriatric opponent, Trump's willingness to sacrifice democratic norms if he gets the chance, the inability of his party to challenge him given the importance of his patronage and a pliant Supreme Court that he will be able to pack even further to do his bidding.
An awful lot depends on TSE being right about November, else fact might come to resemble fiction.
I wouldn't want to overexaggerate the threat. But on the other hand I think people are overly blase about the threat because last time it did not work.
Last time state houses and officials did not seem prepared for the attempt, too many of them held firm, willing to talk a good game but let the courts toss out the spurious challenges and then reject taking action themselves.
This time many people were elected on the basis they would have gone along with overturning the election, and the vast majority of GOP voters support that and think the election was stolen. Believing that, why wouldn't they go further this time if they can?
If Trump does not win legitimately there will be violence from his supporters, and stronger attempts to overthrow it, unless the loss is overwhelming.
If Trump does win legitimately expect at least some number of Dems to copy at least a few of the tactics he employed last time.
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
Mr R rightly makes the point that 10% deposits need saving for, and on a £250k house …..normal, it seems in N Essex for a 2 bed …… that means saving £25,000. That’s not easy.
Agree but nowadays they beg it off their parents.
That's a problem is it not?
I didn't, but it took many years of us both saving to get enough.
Wages haven't kept up with house prices, if they had it would be a wash and not a problem, but they're down substantially which is a bad thing.
It will take many years of house prices falls and/or wage inflation and stationary prices to restore balance.
Back in the late 60’s I bought a house, and needed a loan to tide me over while I sold my first one. The bank manager said that he wasn’t sure about the price; £14,000 seemed a lot. We lived there 20 years, then moved to where we are now. I’ve just looked it up on Zoopla; it’s been sold again for £715,000
Utter insanity. And wages aren't up fifty fold to compensate.
Any correction to the market will take massive negative equity or rampant inflation. Or both.
Easiest solution would be to not start here, but that's not an option.
The cost of servicing a mortgage, is perhaps a better indicator than the headline house price, but the trend line has still been sharply one way since about 1992.
The only solution is to build literally millions more houses.
I'm not sure that simply building millions of houses will necessarily be a complete solution, though it might be desirable in and of itself if good houses are built.
Where you live and the housing you live in is likely to be one of the major determinants of people's quality of life. So it follows that people will dedicate a large proportion of their income to maximising the quality of housing that they live in. So you might expect that a lot of people will always buy the most expensive housing they can afford, and so housing costs will still dominate personal expenditure.
You might also consider restricting mortgage lending as a way of reducing the amount of money that is being used to bid up the price of housing. If you could also do something to make other investments a relatively better option for people then you would also reduce the amount of investment capital being poured into housing (and hopefully that investment capital would find a home somewhere that would increase productivity in the economy).
It seems like you could end up with lower house prices, and more owner-occupiers, with the same housing stock that we have today. Though there are lots of other good reasons for building new houses.
Building millions of houses is necessary, but not sufficient.
There needs to be a post-WWII-scale effort that includes cheap rental and purchase options, likely modern pre-fab construction, and with loans underwritten by government.
It seems that there is a need way beyond what the immigration figures suggest. As a nation we're definitely not breeding like rabbits.
I suspect that there are a huge number of people living in the UK that aren't counted in the measures used. In London it's often hard to hear English being spoken, and many tradespeople (those that actually do the jobs) don't speak English at all.
Also (and probably more important) just that there's a generation of homeowners who don't want to downsize (they've spent decades getting their home and garden 'just right') and are under no particular pressure to. It may mean one or two people rattling round in a family sized house, but they don't want to get rid of stuff and they like the idea that children and grandchildren will come to stay. (They probably won't, and Premier Inns are cheap and ubiquitous, but that's not really the point.)
And on one hand, best of luck to them. There comes a moment when a family house like that becomes unmanageable, and the best time to downsize is a bit before that.
But there's an important caveat. That is fine, if and only if, the generations below also have access to reasonably-priced forever family homes where and when they need them. That doesn't have to mean the sort of things developers tend to build right now; I'd go for copying and pasting Winsdor Gardens from the Paddington movies as well. To the extent that Britain is richer now than in generations past, there's no reason (apart from choices we make) why nice places to live should be in short supply. It's one of the easier problems we have to solve.
However, hogging the nice places to live while refusing to allow any more to be built just isn't on.
When I read the book and watched the original series of "The Handmaid's Tale", despite the fine book/series that it is, the only point where I had really had to suspend belief was the necessity to dismiss the implausibility that a small covert group of extremists could somehow stage a coup d'etat and take control of the USA by force.
Unfortunately, if Margaret Attwood were writing the book today, she would now have available to her a much more plausible scenario that led saw the accession to power of extremists who were able to overturn democratic institutions once in power. All the ingredients are there - the new populist politics that has emerged on the back of social media and the emergence of a figure able to exploit them, the luck of being faced with a geriatric opponent, Trump's willingness to sacrifice democratic norms if he gets the chance, the inability of his party to challenge him given the importance of his patronage and a pliant Supreme Court that he will be able to pack even further to do his bidding.
An awful lot depends on TSE being right about November, else fact might come to resemble fiction.
I wouldn't want to overexaggerate the threat. But on the other hand I think people are overly blase about the threat because last time it did not work.
Last time state houses and officials did not seem prepared for the attempt, too many of them held firm, willing to talk a good game but let the courts toss out the spurious challenges and then reject taking action themselves.
This time many people were elected on the basis they would have gone along with overturning the election, and the vast majority of GOP voters support that and think the election was stolen. Believing that, why wouldn't they go further this time if they can?
If Trump does not win legitimately there will be violence from his supporters, and stronger attempts to overthrow it, unless the loss is overwhelming.
If Trump does win legitimately expect at least some number of Dems to copy at least a few of the tactics he employed last time.
I seem to remember the Munich Putsch being a bit of a joke at the time too. Didn't mean that they didn't do a lot better next time around.
Bloody hell, Vennells sent an appalling letter to Alan Bates which has just been read out. I'm something of a dull old centrist, but I'd be willing to bring back hanging for this woman, she's an absolute disgrace.
Same but I actually to want her to live a long life dealing with the suffering she has caused to so many. She's a fucking priest, she's meant to be the best of humanity.
I think the Tories will have a lot of questions to answer about giving her a CBE and giving her a cabinet office job
Good point.
The religious hypocrisy is one of the things that annoys me most - the pious behaviour when she was presiding over this shitshow.
#NU10K thinking
She had a *difficult* and *strenuous* job. Furrows brow. She bore so much responsibility in this complex and difficult job. It was so hard on her (and her family)
That’s the glossy magazine article you will be reading in a couple of years time.
What do you notice?
If there’s any justice in this world, she’ll be eating prison food in a couple of years’ time.
Considering the list of the guilty over the last 25 years, it would be grossly unfair if Vennalls is the single scapegoat. Smug and venal may sum her up, but the list of smug and venal Post Office Managers and associated politicians is a long one.
Absolutely right: she is guilty, but she is far from the only one. The number of people who abandoned professional and ethical standards is long indeed.
With that team it shouldn't take long to put together a manifesto appealing to their core vote.
As an aside, should they manage to get an MP elected, would that be the first time that a member answerable to a limited company was elected to the Mother of Parliaments?
Was the East India Company a "limited company"? They had whole battalion of "answerable" (to put it politely) MPs.
And were/are English boroughs, and City of London, "limited" corporations?
Bloody hell, Vennells sent an appalling letter to Alan Bates which has just been read out. I'm something of a dull old centrist, but I'd be willing to bring back hanging for this woman, she's an absolute disgrace.
Same but I actually to want her to live a long life dealing with the suffering she has caused to so many. She's a fucking priest, she's meant to be the best of humanity. I think the Tories will have a lot of questions to answer about giving her a CBE and giving her a cabinet office job
Vennells has been a disappointment to all concerned.
We had intended you to be The next Archbishop but three: The stocks were sold; the Press was squared: The Middle Class was quite prepared.
I’ve posted this before, but I’ll post it again; I feel a little sorry for Paula Vennels and her colleagues. If they answer honestly on the stand various lawyers are going to tear them to bits. If they try and dodge, hide behind some avoidance of incriminating themselves something similar is going to happen, and the Chairman’s report is going to be excoriating.
I’m only a little sorry though, after what they appear to have done to others.
When I read the book and watched the original series of "The Handmaid's Tale", despite the fine book/series that it is, the only point where I had really had to suspend belief was the necessity to dismiss the implausibility that a small covert group of extremists could somehow stage a coup d'etat and take control of the USA by force.
Unfortunately, if Margaret Attwood were writing the book today, she would now have available to her a much more plausible scenario that led saw the accession to power of extremists who were able to overturn democratic institutions once in power. All the ingredients are there - the new populist politics that has emerged on the back of social media and the emergence of a figure able to exploit them, the luck of being faced with a geriatric opponent, Trump's willingness to sacrifice democratic norms if he gets the chance, the inability of his party to challenge him given the importance of his patronage and a pliant Supreme Court that he will be able to pack even further to do his bidding.
An awful lot depends on TSE being right about November, else fact might come to resemble fiction.
"Gilead" is far more likely to arrive in countries with very male-dominated societies and low birth rates like China, South Korea or Japan than the USA.
Missed the fun in the last chat, but I'm from North Yorkshire, while also (originally) from Essex.
I just picked my sons up from play school, and when we got home read a football stars book. My eldest asked where Martin Odegaard was from, so I said ‘Norway’ as that’s the flag he was pointing at, and he said ‘but he lives in England?’
Don’t tell me they’re reading this nonsense at Nursery!
He's from Oldham.
Seeing your post I realised I knew little about Oldham beyond the name and the football team being 'Athletic'. I still know very little having perused the wikipedia article, but a touch more. Along the way though there's this great photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MandK_Industrial_Revolution_1900.jpg), but 20% down on the wikipedia page.
The RL team have been the Roughyeds for decades. Which is a great name. Sadly they no longer play at Watersheddings. An evocative name which conjured up the reality of horizontal sleet in September.
When I read the book and watched the original series of "The Handmaid's Tale", despite the fine book/series that it is, the only point where I had really had to suspend belief was the necessity to dismiss the implausibility that a small covert group of extremists could somehow stage a coup d'etat and take control of the USA by force.
Unfortunately, if Margaret Attwood were writing the book today, she would now have available to her a much more plausible scenario that led saw the accession to power of extremists who were able to overturn democratic institutions once in power. All the ingredients are there - the new populist politics that has emerged on the back of social media and the emergence of a figure able to exploit them, the luck of being faced with a geriatric opponent, Trump's willingness to sacrifice democratic norms if he gets the chance, the inability of his party to challenge him given the importance of his patronage and a pliant Supreme Court that he will be able to pack even further to do his bidding.
An awful lot depends on TSE being right about November, else fact might come to resemble fiction.
"Gilead" is far more likely to arrive in countries with very male-dominated societies and low birth rates like China, South Korea or Japan than the USA.
Need to be more religious though. Afghanistan and the countries bordering the Persian Gulf would be my candidates.
Bloody hell, Vennells sent an appalling letter to Alan Bates which has just been read out. I'm something of a dull old centrist, but I'd be willing to bring back hanging for this woman, she's an absolute disgrace.
Same but I actually to want her to live a long life dealing with the suffering she has caused to so many. She's a fucking priest, she's meant to be the best of humanity.
I think the Tories will have a lot of questions to answer about giving her a CBE and giving her a cabinet office job
Good point.
The religious hypocrisy is one of the things that annoys me most - the pious behaviour when she was presiding over this shitshow.
#NU10K thinking
She had a *difficult* and *strenuous* job. Furrows brow. She bore so much responsibility in this complex and difficult job. It was so hard on her (and her family)
That’s the glossy magazine article you will be reading in a couple of years time.
What do you notice?
If there’s any justice in this world, she’ll be eating prison food in a couple of years’ time.
Considering the list of the guilty over the last 25 years, it would be grossly unfair if Vennalls is the single scapegoat. Smug and venal may sum her up, but the list of smug and venal Post Office Managers and associated politicians is a long one.
Absolutely right: she is guilty, but she is far from the only one. The number of people who abandoned professional and ethical standards is long indeed.
It's the standard approach of the elitist classes
Stage 1 - deny there is a problem, or say that the problem is the fault of underlings Stage 2 - If stage 1 fails, find a single person or small group of people among your group to blame the problem on disproportionately, to insulate the systems that allow it to happen and the people who by and large fill out the top ranks of those systems.
This is probably one of those 'problem with the orchard, not a few apples' situations.
Missed the fun in the last chat, but I'm from North Yorkshire, while also (originally) from Essex.
I just picked my sons up from play school, and when we got home read a football stars book. My eldest asked where Martin Odegaard was from, so I said ‘Norway’ as that’s the flag he was pointing at, and he said ‘but he lives in England?’
Don’t tell me they’re reading this nonsense at Nursery!
He's from Oldham.
Seeing your post I realised I knew little about Oldham beyond the name and the football team being 'Athletic'. I still know very little having perused the wikipedia article, but a touch more. Along the way though there's this great photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MandK_Industrial_Revolution_1900.jpg), but 20% down on the wikipedia page.
One of my oldest friends (first met in 1985 at my first workplace) pre-retired to Oldham a few years ago, as their parents and children had all ended up in the real north (as opposed to the North Midlands).
My impression is that it is struggling, but possibly one of those places that may eventually benefit from a northern renaissance.
When I read the book and watched the original series of "The Handmaid's Tale", despite the fine book/series that it is, the only point where I had really had to suspend belief was the necessity to dismiss the implausibility that a small covert group of extremists could somehow stage a coup d'etat and take control of the USA by force.
Unfortunately, if Margaret Attwood were writing the book today, she would now have available to her a much more plausible scenario that led saw the accession to power of extremists who were able to overturn democratic institutions once in power. All the ingredients are there - the new populist politics that has emerged on the back of social media and the emergence of a figure able to exploit them, the luck of being faced with a geriatric opponent, Trump's willingness to sacrifice democratic norms if he gets the chance, the inability of his party to challenge him given the importance of his patronage and a pliant Supreme Court that he will be able to pack even further to do his bidding.
An awful lot depends on TSE being right about November, else fact might come to resemble fiction.
"Gilead" is far more likely to arrive in countries with very male-dominated societies and low birth rates like China, South Korea or Japan than the USA.
I was referring to the potential route by which the USA's democratic institutions might fail, not so much the potential for the dictatorship that followed being that of religious extremists. Although when you put your mind to the succession process post Trump, you can't rule that out either.
Saw on previous thread, that (some) LibDem PBers are still defending their Dire Leader re: the PO Scandal.
Mostly (it seems) on grounds that when he received his initial letter from Alan Bates, he'd only been the responsible (in one sense anyway) minister for about 15 minutes or thereabouts.
Which raises the question - so what did Ed Davey do re: the PO Scandal AFTERWARDS during the rest of his time in office? OR when he left HMG?
Answer seems to be - diddly squat. OR is that unfair to ED?
The letters are pretty bad for Ed Davey although interestingly Alan Bates seemed somewhat uncomfortable recalling his dealings with the then Minister.
Davey's main point was that as a supposedly independent business, it rather than the government was responsible for what the business does. Bates was having none of that as the government was and is the sole shareholder. I don't think anyone can disagree, but I have a bad feeling I would have taken the same line as Davey in his shoes.
It was the easy and, seemingly, safe option for him at the time. Most of the time that sort of approach will not blow up in your face, but you have to take it on the rare occasions it will.
To be fair the actual harm was caused by the Post Office with the collusion of Fujitsu. No-one in government was involved in that as far as I know and Ed Davey certainly wasn't. But "nothing to do with us" wasn't a good response at the time and worse again now we know what we know..
Further to one of yesterday's discussions, surely any Ange related scandal should be called Growlergate; both for alliterative reasons, and to celebrate the wonderful nickname she gave to her, um, self
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
Mr R rightly makes the point that 10% deposits need saving for, and on a £250k house …..normal, it seems in N Essex for a 2 bed …… that means saving £25,000. That’s not easy.
Agree but nowadays they beg it off their parents.
That's a problem is it not?
I didn't, but it took many years of us both saving to get enough.
Wages haven't kept up with house prices, if they had it would be a wash and not a problem, but they're down substantially which is a bad thing.
It will take many years of house prices falls and/or wage inflation and stationary prices to restore balance.
Back in the late 60’s I bought a house, and needed a loan to tide me over while I sold my first one. The bank manager said that he wasn’t sure about the price; £14,000 seemed a lot. We lived there 20 years, then moved to where we are now. I’ve just looked it up on Zoopla; it’s been sold again for £715,000
Utter insanity. And wages aren't up fifty fold to compensate.
Any correction to the market will take massive negative equity or rampant inflation. Or both.
Easiest solution would be to not start here, but that's not an option.
The cost of servicing a mortgage, is perhaps a better indicator than the headline house price, but the trend line has still been sharply one way since about 1992.
The only solution is to build literally millions more houses.
I'm not sure that simply building millions of houses will necessarily be a complete solution, though it might be desirable in and of itself if good houses are built.
Where you live and the housing you live in is likely to be one of the major determinants of people's quality of life. So it follows that people will dedicate a large proportion of their income to maximising the quality of housing that they live in. So you might expect that a lot of people will always buy the most expensive housing they can afford, and so housing costs will still dominate personal expenditure.
You might also consider restricting mortgage lending as a way of reducing the amount of money that is being used to bid up the price of housing. If you could also do something to make other investments a relatively better option for people then you would also reduce the amount of investment capital being poured into housing (and hopefully that investment capital would find a home somewhere that would increase productivity in the economy).
It seems like you could end up with lower house prices, and more owner-occupiers, with the same housing stock that we have today. Though there are lots of other good reasons for building new houses.
Building millions of houses is necessary, but not sufficient.
There needs to be a post-WWII-scale effort that includes cheap rental and purchase options, likely modern pre-fab construction, and with loans underwritten by government.
It seems that there is a need way beyond what the immigration figures suggest. As a nation we're definitely not breeding like rabbits.
I suspect that there are a huge number of people living in the UK that aren't counted in the measures used. In London it's often hard to hear English being spoken, and many tradespeople (those that actually do the jobs) don't speak English at all.
Oh, why can't the English learn to set A good example to people whose English is painful to your ears? The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears. There even are places where English completely Disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years!
Ah, the days when Hollywood was still capable of making clever, witty films.
Earlier today, my fellow octogenarian, Big G from N.Wales, posted that the best thing to have in one's latter years was health, and he's unquestionably right. I wish I could do the things I could do two years ago, let alone 10 or 20! And as for 50 years ago: words fail me! I often agree with Malcolm, but this time I don't. It was easier to get a house 50 years ago; the price my wife and I paid for our first house was about three times my annual salary as a pharmacist; my eldest grandson, There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now.a teacher, and his wife, another teacher, who have bought not such a nice house (not such a nice area anyway) have paid five times their combined annual salaries, and it's not so far from where we used to live. It's also at least twice the price of the house, his sister lives in; in Leeds There was a difference back in the day, but it wasn't quite as great as it is now. And my wife, and I, back in the day managed on my salary; she stayed at home and looked after me and the children. My grandson and his wife both need to work.
Incidentally I was mentally reminiscing about politics back in the day and came to the conclusion that we had a lot, as far as the EU is concerned, to blame General de Gaulle for. If he had not vetoed our entry into the EEC back in the early 60's we'd have been in one the ground floor, rather than playing catch up in the 70's.
One thing though OKC, it was much harder to get a mortgage back then. You had to have saved with them for years and they only gave strict limits re multiples , deposits etc. Price deifferentials are higher but I still think easier to get a house today , outside London and south east at least.
You need a deposit today still. Harder to get a 10% deposit when prices are 8x income than it is to get a 10% deposit when prices are 2x income.
Currently people need to save nearly a year's wages to get a deposit. Which takes many years of savings, decades for some people.
We are not talking minimum wage are we and even at that it would get you >180K house which for most parts of the country would get you a decent house. Even in london where on here they are always saying 50K is poverty wage it gets you almost 500K. wages are more than 10 x what they were then so seems a wash to me
Mr R rightly makes the point that 10% deposits need saving for, and on a £250k house …..normal, it seems in N Essex for a 2 bed …… that means saving £25,000. That’s not easy.
Agree but nowadays they beg it off their parents.
That's a problem is it not?
I didn't, but it took many years of us both saving to get enough.
Wages haven't kept up with house prices, if they had it would be a wash and not a problem, but they're down substantially which is a bad thing.
It will take many years of house prices falls and/or wage inflation and stationary prices to restore balance.
Back in the late 60’s I bought a house, and needed a loan to tide me over while I sold my first one. The bank manager said that he wasn’t sure about the price; £14,000 seemed a lot. We lived there 20 years, then moved to where we are now. I’ve just looked it up on Zoopla; it’s been sold again for £715,000
Utter insanity. And wages aren't up fifty fold to compensate.
Any correction to the market will take massive negative equity or rampant inflation. Or both.
Easiest solution would be to not start here, but that's not an option.
The cost of servicing a mortgage, is perhaps a better indicator than the headline house price, but the trend line has still been sharply one way since about 1992.
The only solution is to build literally millions more houses.
I'm not sure that simply building millions of houses will necessarily be a complete solution, though it might be desirable in and of itself if good houses are built.
Where you live and the housing you live in is likely to be one of the major determinants of people's quality of life. So it follows that people will dedicate a large proportion of their income to maximising the quality of housing that they live in. So you might expect that a lot of people will always buy the most expensive housing they can afford, and so housing costs will still dominate personal expenditure.
You might also consider restricting mortgage lending as a way of reducing the amount of money that is being used to bid up the price of housing. If you could also do something to make other investments a relatively better option for people then you would also reduce the amount of investment capital being poured into housing (and hopefully that investment capital would find a home somewhere that would increase productivity in the economy).
It seems like you could end up with lower house prices, and more owner-occupiers, with the same housing stock that we have today. Though there are lots of other good reasons for building new houses.
Building millions of houses is necessary, but not sufficient.
There needs to be a post-WWII-scale effort that includes cheap rental and purchase options, likely modern pre-fab construction, and with loans underwritten by government.
It seems that there is a need way beyond what the immigration figures suggest. As a nation we're definitely not breeding like rabbits.
I suspect that there are a huge number of people living in the UK that aren't counted in the measures used. In London it's often hard to hear English being spoken, and many tradespeople (those that actually do the jobs) don't speak English at all.
Oh, why can't the English learn to set A good example to people whose English is painful to your ears? The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears. There even are places where English completely Disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years!
Ah, the days when Hollywood was still capable of making clever, witty films.
Bloody hell, Vennells sent an appalling letter to Alan Bates which has just been read out. I'm something of a dull old centrist, but I'd be willing to bring back hanging for this woman, she's an absolute disgrace.
Same but I actually to want her to live a long life dealing with the suffering she has caused to so many. She's a fucking priest, she's meant to be the best of humanity.
I think the Tories will have a lot of questions to answer about giving her a CBE and giving her a cabinet office job
Good point.
The religious hypocrisy is one of the things that annoys me most - the pious behaviour when she was presiding over this shitshow.
#NU10K thinking
She had a *difficult* and *strenuous* job. Furrows brow. She bore so much responsibility in this complex and difficult job. It was so hard on her (and her family)
That’s the glossy magazine article you will be reading in a couple of years time.
What do you notice?
If there’s any justice in this world, she’ll be eating prison food in a couple of years’ time.
Considering the list of the guilty over the last 25 years, it would be grossly unfair if Vennalls is the single scapegoat. Smug and venal may sum her up, but the list of smug and venal Post Office Managers and associated politicians is a long one.
Absolutely right: she is guilty, but she is far from the only one. The number of people who abandoned professional and ethical standards is long indeed.
Is "abandoned" the apt word, considering that there are grounds for suspecting that Vennalls et al NEVER actually adopted actual professional and ethical standards in the first place?
Bloody hell, Vennells sent an appalling letter to Alan Bates which has just been read out. I'm something of a dull old centrist, but I'd be willing to bring back hanging for this woman, she's an absolute disgrace.
Same but I actually to want her to live a long life dealing with the suffering she has caused to so many. She's a fucking priest, she's meant to be the best of humanity.
I think the Tories will have a lot of questions to answer about giving her a CBE and giving her a cabinet office job
Good point.
The religious hypocrisy is one of the things that annoys me most - the pious behaviour when she was presiding over this shitshow.
#NU10K thinking
She had a *difficult* and *strenuous* job. Furrows brow. She bore so much responsibility in this complex and difficult job. It was so hard on her (and her family)
That’s the glossy magazine article you will be reading in a couple of years time.
What do you notice?
If there’s any justice in this world, she’ll be eating prison food in a couple of years’ time.
Considering the list of the guilty over the last 25 years, it would be grossly unfair if Vennalls is the single scapegoat. Smug and venal may sum her up, but the list of smug and venal Post Office Managers and associated politicians is a long one.
Absolutely right: she is guilty, but she is far from the only one. The number of people who abandoned professional and ethical standards is long indeed.
Is "abandoned" the apt word, considering that there are grounds for suspecting that Vennalls et al NEVER actually adopted actual professional and ethical standards in the first place?
Evaded professional and ethical standards? Avoided? Ran screaming in the opposite direction of?
We've also had the Labour leaflet today. With around 20% Undecided, Khan's lead, substantial as it is, isn't insurmountable. Labour will be working hard to combat complacency in Inner London and ensuring their vote holds up in Outer London - if Labour can run the Conservatives close in Outer London and win Inner London they'll be home fairly easily.
The other truth is probably if you dislike Khan so much you want him out, the idea of voting for Susan Hall (I know) might not be wholly unapalatable and Khan is not widely liked. She is the only alternative but her utterances have done little for her credibility and her only hope is a very low Inner London turnout and a big Conservative vote in the Outer suburbs.
Missed the fun in the last chat, but I'm from North Yorkshire, while also (originally) from Essex.
I just picked my sons up from play school, and when we got home read a football stars book. My eldest asked where Martin Odegaard was from, so I said ‘Norway’ as that’s the flag he was pointing at, and he said ‘but he lives in England?’
Don’t tell me they’re reading this nonsense at Nursery!
He's from Oldham.
Seeing your post I realised I knew little about Oldham beyond the name and the football team being 'Athletic'. I still know very little having perused the wikipedia article, but a touch more. Along the way though there's this great photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MandK_Industrial_Revolution_1900.jpg), but 20% down on the wikipedia page.
One of my oldest friends (first met in 1985 at my first workplace) pre-retired to Oldham a few years ago, as their parents and children had all ended up in the real north (as opposed to the North Midlands).
My impression is that it is struggling, but possibly one of those places that may eventually benefit from a northern renaissance.
Some absolutely lovely bits in Oldham, countryside outside the town centre is stunning.
Tram and some inward investment is slowly improving the town centre, lots of unused Victorian buildings earmarked for, or undergoing, redevelopment.
If Khan wins he is the most successful Labour politician since Blair?
Without seeking to belittle the position, which does have some power and involves getting a lot of votes, it's still just a mayoral position when all is said and done.
Well. I never knew this. Brian Clough was the original Chairman of the Anti-Nazi League. He hated UK 1970s Nazis and said they should be forced to visit Auschwitz:
Saw on previous thread, that (some) LibDem PBers are still defending their Dire Leader re: the PO Scandal.
Mostly (it seems) on grounds that when he received his initial letter from Alan Bates, he'd only been the responsible (in one sense anyway) minister for about 15 minutes or thereabouts.
Which raises the question - so what did Ed Davey do re: the PO Scandal AFTERWARDS during the rest of his time in office? OR when he left HMG?
Answer seems to be - diddly squat. OR is that unfair to ED?
The letters are pretty bad for Ed Davey although interestingly Alan Bates seemed somewhat uncomfortable recalling his dealings with the then Minister.
Davey's main point was that as a supposedly independent business, it rather than the government was responsible for what the business does. Bates was having none of that as the government was and is the sole shareholder. I don't think anyone can disagree, but I have a bad feeling I would have taken the same line as Davey in his shoes.
It was the easy and, seemingly, safe option for him at the time. Most of the time that sort of approach will not blow up in your face, but you have to take it on the rare occasions it will.
To be fair the actual harm was caused by the Post Office with the collusion of Fujitsu. No-one in government was involved in that as far as I know and Ed Davey certainly wasn't. But "nothing to do with us" wasn't a good response at the time and worse again now we know what we know..
Bates's testimony today reveals there's huge portions of "blame" to go round if that makes everyone feel better and we can apparently add the National Federation of Sub Postmasters who appear to have been as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
It's a massive collective failure of accountability and responsibility which aided and abetted the antics of both Fujitsu and senior Post Office management and enabled them to get away with actions which sound bad because they were bad.
I understand the partisan points scoring on all sides - politics is rough trade as someone once said - but it's undignified and unhelpful. 30 years of failure at all levels deserves so much more and so much better. A collective mea culpa would be a start and perhaps helping the victims should be the priority rather than the tedious game of pinning the blame on the scapegoat du jour.
Well. I never knew this. Brian Clough was the original Chairman of the Anti-Nazi League. He hated UK 1970s Nazis and said they should be forced to visit Auschwitz:
Some background on the topic: Years ago, I saw a Gallup study which looked at voters for whom abortion was the deciding factor in their vote choices. At that time, as I recall, about 4 percent were pro-life, 3 percent pro-abortion, so, nationally, being pro-life was a slight advantage.
That might help explain why the Republican platform has been, since 1980, pro-life. And why every Republcian president since then has tried to place pro-life judges on our courts. (With varying success, depending on which party controlled the Senate.)
Second, on both sides, the strongest supporters are women. The demonstrators against abortion are almost all women -- often women who have more than one child. (For an example, take a look at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett:
"In 1999, Barrett married fellow Notre Dame Law School graduate Jesse M. Barrett, a partner at SouthBank Legal – LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC, in South Bend, Indiana,[215] and a law professor at Notre Dame Law School.[216] Previously, Jesse Barrett had worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana for 13 years.[217] The couple live in South Bend and have seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti, one in 2005 and one after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.[32][218] Their youngest biological child has Down syndrome." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
Third, there is wide variety in our state laws on abortion, just as there is variety in the laws in the nations of Europe.
Fourth, the importance of this issue to many voters is one of the reason the parties have been becoming more uniform on the issue. As many know, when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he signed a law legalizing abortion. As few know, Jesse Jackson was opposed to abortion early in his political career. A that time about 30 percent of abortions were performed on black women, a fact that caused him to use "holocaust" to describe that loss of black babies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson#Stance_on_abortion
If Khan wins he is the most successful Labour politician since Blair?
Without seeking to belittle the position, which does have some power and involves getting a lot of votes, it's still just a mayoral position when all is said and done.
In truth, the Mayor of London doesn't have a lot of power or at least he didn't until Johnson became Mayor and took on the running of the Met and Transport for London.
The Boroughs still have a lot of responsibility - the Newham Mayor can make a lot of changes and decisions without reference to the Mayor of London.
If Khan wins he is the most successful Labour politician since Blair?
Without seeking to belittle the position, which does have some power and involves getting a lot of votes, it's still just a mayoral position when all is said and done.
In truth, the Mayor of London doesn't have a lot of power or at least he didn't until Johnson became Mayor and took on the running of the Met and Transport for London.
The Boroughs still have a lot of responsibility - the Newham Mayor can make a lot of changes and decisions without reference to the Mayor of London.
Likewise most Council Leaders have more impact than a backbench MP.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
It's almost like somebody wrote an article about how biopolitics - the power of the state over the body - will be an increasingly important battleground in 2020's politics.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
If Khan wins he is the most successful Labour politician since Blair?
Without seeking to belittle the position, which does have some power and involves getting a lot of votes, it's still just a mayoral position when all is said and done.
In truth, the Mayor of London doesn't have a lot of power or at least he didn't until Johnson became Mayor and took on the running of the Met and Transport for London.
The Boroughs still have a lot of responsibility - the Newham Mayor can make a lot of changes and decisions without reference to the Mayor of London.
Likewise most Council Leaders have more impact than a backbench MP.
To be fair it's the velocity of the backbench MP that counts. Given a normal brick wall, and the average ire to propulsion I'm not sure that the Council leaders will make a bigger indent.
Missed the fun in the last chat, but I'm from North Yorkshire, while also (originally) from Essex.
I just picked my sons up from play school, and when we got home read a football stars book. My eldest asked where Martin Odegaard was from, so I said ‘Norway’ as that’s the flag he was pointing at, and he said ‘but he lives in England?’
Don’t tell me they’re reading this nonsense at Nursery!
He's from Oldham.
Seeing your post I realised I knew little about Oldham beyond the name and the football team being 'Athletic'. I still know very little having perused the wikipedia article, but a touch more. Along the way though there's this great photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MandK_Industrial_Revolution_1900.jpg), but 20% down on the wikipedia page.
I watched that. I confess I had never really watched a full interview with her before.
She came across as deeply nasty and rather stupid.
She showed no compassion whatsoever for Gaza civilians, no compassion for the people she wants to deport plane after plane-load of to Rwanda (completely forgetting that that the initial maximum would have been 200 people).
Saw on previous thread, that (some) LibDem PBers are still defending their Dire Leader re: the PO Scandal.
Mostly (it seems) on grounds that when he received his initial letter from Alan Bates, he'd only been the responsible (in one sense anyway) minister for about 15 minutes or thereabouts.
Which raises the question - so what did Ed Davey do re: the PO Scandal AFTERWARDS during the rest of his time in office? OR when he left HMG?
Answer seems to be - diddly squat. OR is that unfair to ED?
The letters are pretty bad for Ed Davey although interestingly Alan Bates seemed somewhat uncomfortable recalling his dealings with the then Minister.
Davey's main point was that as a supposedly independent business, it rather than the government was responsible for what the business does. Bates was having none of that as the government was and is the sole shareholder. I don't think anyone can disagree, but I have a bad feeling I would have taken the same line as Davey in his shoes.
Bates' later testimony revealed the supposed independence of the Post Office from government to be a convenient fiction.
I watched most of the testimony and got the impression that the LD ministers Davey and Swinson copped the worst of it, although in his short ministerial tenure Lamb was given some credit as being the first minister to take Bates seriously. Davey's role as party leader means that he's the one that matters.
Before piling onto the LDs let's remember that they were only junior coalition partners and the scandal must have come to the attention of No 10 and Treasury because MPs were taking up the cause as well. In the 9 years of Conservative government that followed the coalition, we have seen the Post Office being given carte blanche to try and make things go away in the courts and there's an absence of proper recompense even to this day. That means that a myriad of Conservatives and especially Sunak are pretty culpable too.
Financially it will clearly be left to Labour to eventually pick up the tab.
Missed the fun in the last chat, but I'm from North Yorkshire, while also (originally) from Essex.
I just picked my sons up from play school, and when we got home read a football stars book. My eldest asked where Martin Odegaard was from, so I said ‘Norway’ as that’s the flag he was pointing at, and he said ‘but he lives in England?’
Don’t tell me they’re reading this nonsense at Nursery!
He's from Oldham.
Seeing your post I realised I knew little about Oldham beyond the name and the football team being 'Athletic'. I still know very little having perused the wikipedia article, but a touch more. Along the way though there's this great photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MandK_Industrial_Revolution_1900.jpg), but 20% down on the wikipedia page.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
The election or otherwise of a president, has nothing to do with an issue that is reserved to the individual States themselves.
Yes, Mr Cameron is doing a very good job of British diplomacy, speaking to both sides in the US today to try and unlock more Ukraine aid.
But that's not quite true.
If it was solely reserved for individual states, then I would support it. But already you've had a State Court in Texas attempt to impose a nationwide ban on an FDA approved drug. Not a Texas ban, but a nationwide one.
How can a State court impose a federal ban, when the state court only has jurisdiction within their own State?
Off topic, but important: "Canada's spy agency believes the Chinese government "clandestinely and deceptively" interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections — and a top secret briefing note discussed at the Foreign Interference Commission shows the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) told the Prime Minister's Office about it in February 2023.
Can I apply for membership? How much are the fees?
£50 to each existing member I think.
And if I join, and get seven more people to join, then they each pay me £50, and they get seven new members each and they pay £50, some of which trickles up to me, and so it goes on. I think you might have the makings of a viable business plan here.
I think Biden will win over Trump, but it's clearly neck and neck.
Trump 2 the return would be a disaster, for Ukraine especially.
I wish Joe didn't always look as if he's about to fall over when he's walking. To the extent I have an electoral concern that is it. Not how he speaks but that visible physical frailty.
At Biden's stage of life he really needs a decent Veep
Harris ain't that. I bet she's costing him in the polling
If I were President (I would not carry oh no small change), I'd want Pete
Historically, VP candidates matter little (or less) to POTUS voters.
Typically may help carry their home states. OR not.
Re: 2024, the political pain of ditching Kamala Harris with (some) Black voters, would outweigh any advantages of a potential (esp. non-Black) replacement.
Note that last POTUS to change VPs was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice: 1940 (Garner out, Wallace in); and 1944 (Wallace out, Truman in).
ADDENDUM - Re: health & related of President, worth noting that it was strong concern re: FDR's health & longevity, that prompted inner circle with govt & Dem party, to work successfully to replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman.
However, FDR himself apparently did NOT share these concerns. But went along, mainly because he didn't think it was that big a deal, in summer of '44, who(m) was gonna be his VP for the 4th term.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
He’s on a different level - in rhetoric, confidence, maturity - from his front bench peers.
It really highlights the lack of talent and competence caused by BJs cull in 2019. The populists that replaced them had nothing ... there is just nothing except grievance and emotion. But governance needs more. Let's get this straight: Cameron and his lot brought brutal ideologically driven austerity on the country.... but that is still better than the horror inflicted on the country by the popcons and brexit. Dear me.
The absence of talent in the Tory ranks was started mainly by Cameron's absolute betrayal of trust in abandoning ship at exactly the moment it was essential he saw through the, entirely foreseeable, consequences of his own policies. The party has never recovered.
How long do you think Cameron and Osborne would have been allowed to remain in charge of Brexit negotiations by the ERG?
Cameron was PM, not the ERG. If they had had the numbers to oust him and did so, then it would their responsibility. Most Tory MPs were centrists.
I don't think you could have someone who led the losing side running negotiations for a policy he did not advocate.
Though one could say that having no plans in place if the referendum was lost was plain irresponsible and buggering off within 24 hours was plain dereliction of duty.
Perhaps he believed the Leave side who said it would be the easiest trade deal in history and no deal was Project Fear bollocks.
FWIW - I know for a fact that Gove and Johnson spent 21st of June to 23rd of June 2016 trying to ensure there wasn't a vote of confidence against Dave is Remain won.
There were enough of the ERG ready to trigger a confidence vote.
At Biden's stage of life he really needs a decent Veep
Harris ain't that. I bet she's costing him in the polling
If I were President (I would not carry oh no small change), I'd want Pete
Historically, VP candidates matter little (or less) to POTUS voters.
Typically may help carry their home states. OR not.
Re: 2024, the political pain of ditching Kamala Harris with (some) Black voters, would outweigh any advantages of a potential (esp. non-Black) replacement.
Note that last POTUS to change VPs was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice: 1940 (Garner out, Wallace in); and 1944 (Wallace out, Truman in).
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
The election or otherwise of a president, has nothing to do with an issue that is reserved to the individual States themselves.
Yes, Mr Cameron is doing a very good job of British diplomacy, speaking to both sides in the US today to try and unlock more Ukraine aid.
But that's not quite true.
If it was solely reserved for individual states, then I would support it. But already you've had a State Court in Texas attempt to impose a nationwide ban on an FDA approved drug. Not a Texas ban, but a nationwide one.
It's completely untrue.
If it were "reserved to the individual States" that would be constitutional fact, and your (or anyone else's) support or otherwise would be irrelevant.
What the Dobbs ruling did was to say that women have no constitutionally protected right to choose to have an abortion.
Because the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion.
Roe v Wade was the duff judgement, and the last 60 years of US history on the subject stem from that.
I think Biden will win over Trump, but it's clearly neck and neck.
Trump 2 the return would be a disaster, for Ukraine especially.
I wish Joe didn't always look as if he's about to fall over when he's walking. To the extent I have an electoral concern that is it. Not how he speaks but that visible physical frailty.
My nightmare scenario is Biden either dies or becomes seriously ill just before the election . Not only handing the Presidency to Trump but effecting loads of downballot races .
Bloody hell, Vennells sent an appalling letter to Alan Bates which has just been read out. I'm something of a dull old centrist, but I'd be willing to bring back hanging for this woman, she's an absolute disgrace.
Same but I actually to want her to live a long life dealing with the suffering she has caused to so many. She's a fucking priest, she's meant to be the best of humanity.
I think the Tories will have a lot of questions to answer about giving her a CBE and giving her a cabinet office job
Good point.
The religious hypocrisy is one of the things that annoys me most - the pious behaviour when she was presiding over this shitshow.
#NU10K thinking
She had a *difficult* and *strenuous* job. Furrows brow. She bore so much responsibility in this complex and difficult job. It was so hard on her (and her family)
That’s the glossy magazine article you will be reading in a couple of years time.
What do you notice?
If there’s any justice in this world, she’ll be eating prison food in a couple of years’ time.
Considering the list of the guilty over the last 25 years, it would be grossly unfair if Vennalls is the single scapegoat. Smug and venal may sum her up, but the list of smug and venal Post Office Managers and associated politicians is a long one.
Absolutely right: she is guilty, but she is far from the only one. The number of people who abandoned professional and ethical standards is long indeed.
When admitting the truth would involve tremendous culpability and consequences people will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid admitting it.
Cognitive dissonance kicks in, which helps convince them they're right as well.
I think Biden will win over Trump, but it's clearly neck and neck.
Trump 2 the return would be a disaster, for Ukraine especially.
I wish Joe didn't always look as if he's about to fall over when he's walking. To the extent I have an electoral concern that is it. Not how he speaks but that visible physical frailty.
As much as I don't think Trump is in good physical or certainly mental health, Biden does look and sound his age much more. It wouldn't concern me at all, given what he is up against, but it probably has at least some effect.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
He’s on a different level - in rhetoric, confidence, maturity - from his front bench peers.
It really highlights the lack of talent and competence caused by BJs cull in 2019. The populists that replaced them had nothing ... there is just nothing except grievance and emotion. But governance needs more. Let's get this straight: Cameron and his lot brought brutal ideologically driven austerity on the country.... but that is still better than the horror inflicted on the country by the popcons and brexit. Dear me.
The absence of talent in the Tory ranks was started mainly by Cameron's absolute betrayal of trust in abandoning ship at exactly the moment it was essential he saw through the, entirely foreseeable, consequences of his own policies. The party has never recovered.
How long do you think Cameron and Osborne would have been allowed to remain in charge of Brexit negotiations by the ERG?
Cameron was PM, not the ERG. If they had had the numbers to oust him and did so, then it would their responsibility. Most Tory MPs were centrists.
I don't think you could have someone who led the losing side running negotiations for a policy he did not advocate.
Though one could say that having no plans in place if the referendum was lost was plain irresponsible and buggering off within 24 hours was plain dereliction of duty.
Perhaps he believed the Leave side who said it would be the easiest trade deal in history and no deal was Project Fear bollocks.
FWIW - I know for a fact that Gove and Johnson spent 21st of June to 23rd of June 2016 trying to ensure there wasn't a vote of confidence against Dave is Remain won.
There were enough of the ERG ready to trigger a confidence vote.
At Biden's stage of life he really needs a decent Veep
Harris ain't that. I bet she's costing him in the polling
If I were President (I would not carry oh no small change), I'd want Pete
Historically, VP candidates matter little (or less) to POTUS voters.
Typically may help carry their home states. OR not.
Re: 2024, the political pain of ditching Kamala Harris with (some) Black voters, would outweigh any advantages of a potential (esp. non-Black) replacement.
Note that last POTUS to change VPs was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice: 1940 (Garner out, Wallace in); and 1944 (Wallace out, Truman in).
Saw on previous thread, that (some) LibDem PBers are still defending their Dire Leader re: the PO Scandal.
Mostly (it seems) on grounds that when he received his initial letter from Alan Bates, he'd only been the responsible (in one sense anyway) minister for about 15 minutes or thereabouts.
Which raises the question - so what did Ed Davey do re: the PO Scandal AFTERWARDS during the rest of his time in office? OR when he left HMG?
Answer seems to be - diddly squat. OR is that unfair to ED?
The letters are pretty bad for Ed Davey although interestingly Alan Bates seemed somewhat uncomfortable recalling his dealings with the then Minister.
Davey's main point was that as a supposedly independent business, it rather than the government was responsible for what the business does. Bates was having none of that as the government was and is the sole shareholder. I don't think anyone can disagree, but I have a bad feeling I would have taken the same line as Davey in his shoes.
It was the easy and, seemingly, safe option for him at the time. Most of the time that sort of approach will not blow up in your face, but you have to take it on the rare occasions it will.
To be fair the actual harm was caused by the Post Office with the collusion of Fujitsu. No-one in government was involved in that as far as I know and Ed Davey certainly wasn't. But "nothing to do with us" wasn't a good response at the time and worse again now we know what we know..
Bates's testimony today reveals there's huge portions of "blame" to go round if that makes everyone feel better and we can apparently add the National Federation of Sub Postmasters who appear to have been as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
It's a massive collective failure of accountability and responsibility which aided and abetted the antics of both Fujitsu and senior Post Office management and enabled them to get away with actions which sound bad because they were bad.
I understand the partisan points scoring on all sides - politics is rough trade as someone once said - but it's undignified and unhelpful. 30 years of failure at all levels deserves so much more and so much better. A collective mea culpa would be a start and perhaps helping the victims should be the priority rather than the tedious game of pinning the blame on the scapegoat du jour.
The above comments should, for a start, put off anyone who thinks the answer to the issue of government ownership is to create arms length 100% government owned entities.
If they don’t answer to the shareholders, then you are taking about complete unaccountability. Literally.
Accountability is like risk. Idiots think you can put it in a box and sell it to someone. Anyone says yes to that, I’ve got some Greek CDS, low mileage.
As we have seen with certain hospital trusts, the combination of a large organisation and the belief that they are a Public Service gives an arrogant belief that they *should* be unaccountable. That they are doing Gods Work and some dead grannies is a fair price.
At Biden's stage of life he really needs a decent Veep
Harris ain't that. I bet she's costing him in the polling
If I were President (I would not carry oh no small change), I'd want Pete
Historically, VP candidates matter little (or less) to POTUS voters.
Typically may help carry their home states. OR not.
Re: 2024, the political pain of ditching Kamala Harris with (some) Black voters, would outweigh any advantages of a potential (esp. non-Black) replacement.
Note that last POTUS to change VPs was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice: 1940 (Garner out, Wallace in); and 1944 (Wallace out, Truman in).
If only Pete could come out as Black..
Transracialism remains socially unacceptable. For now at any rate.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
The election or otherwise of a president, has nothing to do with an issue that is reserved to the individual States themselves.
Yes, Mr Cameron is doing a very good job of British diplomacy, speaking to both sides in the US today to try and unlock more Ukraine aid.
But that's not quite true.
If it was solely reserved for individual states, then I would support it. But already you've had a State Court in Texas attempt to impose a nationwide ban on an FDA approved drug. Not a Texas ban, but a nationwide one.
It's completely untrue.
If it were "reserved to the individual States" that would be constitutional fact, and your (or anyone else's) support or otherwise would be irrelevant.
What the Dobbs ruling did was to say that women have no constitutionally protected right to choose to have an abortion.
Because the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion.
Roe v Wade was the duff judgement, and the last 60 years of US history on the subject stem from that.
More importantly, the 10th Amendment says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States ..." So anything not explicitly federal is state. Abortion isn't explicitly federal, so it's a state matter. Roe was an end-run around that, and all the contortions about privacy in penumbras was so much sophistry. And that's why it's been controversial ever since.
At Biden's stage of life he really needs a decent Veep
Harris ain't that. I bet she's costing him in the polling
If I were President (I would not carry oh no small change), I'd want Pete
Stuck with what he's got (I cannot speak as to her quality myself), much as the Dems were stuck with him once he decided he wanted to rerun.
From what I've seen of Pete he seems very good.
US Secretary of Transportation is currently facing a HUGE challenge: the aftermath of Francis Scott Key Bridge Crash & Collapse.
How well he hits the high notes (ahem) may have impact on 2024 election, esp. in Pennsylvania, the nearest swing state to Baltimore, and where Democratic stronghold of metro Philadelphia is significantly impacted by disruptions to I-95 corridor.
ON TOPIC - NYT - Arizona Upholds 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban
The state’s highest court said the law, moribund for decades under Roe v. Wade, was now enforceable, but put the decision on hold for a lower court to hear other challenges to the law.
Off topic, but important: "Canada's spy agency believes the Chinese government "clandestinely and deceptively" interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections — and a top secret briefing note discussed at the Foreign Interference Commission shows the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) told the Prime Minister's Office about it in February 2023.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
He’s on a different level - in rhetoric, confidence, maturity - from his front bench peers.
It really highlights the lack of talent and competence caused by BJs cull in 2019. The populists that replaced them had nothing ... there is just nothing except grievance and emotion. But governance needs more. Let's get this straight: Cameron and his lot brought brutal ideologically driven austerity on the country.... but that is still better than the horror inflicted on the country by the popcons and brexit. Dear me.
The absence of talent in the Tory ranks was started mainly by Cameron's absolute betrayal of trust in abandoning ship at exactly the moment it was essential he saw through the, entirely foreseeable, consequences of his own policies. The party has never recovered.
How long do you think Cameron and Osborne would have been allowed to remain in charge of Brexit negotiations by the ERG?
Cameron was PM, not the ERG. If they had had the numbers to oust him and did so, then it would their responsibility. Most Tory MPs were centrists.
I don't think you could have someone who led the losing side running negotiations for a policy he did not advocate.
Though one could say that having no plans in place if the referendum was lost was plain irresponsible and buggering off within 24 hours was plain dereliction of duty.
Perhaps he believed the Leave side who said it would be the easiest trade deal in history and no deal was Project Fear bollocks.
FWIW - I know for a fact that Gove and Johnson spent 21st of June to 23rd of June 2016 trying to ensure there wasn't a vote of confidence against Dave is Remain won.
There were enough of the ERG ready to trigger a confidence vote.
Which is to Gove and Johnson's credit.
Without doubt Gove and Johnson had an angle, one which would benefit them respectively. Maybe the time wasn't right immediately after Dave won the EU Referendum. If Gove was content to stab Johnson in the front he would have had no qualms in sticking one in Cameron's back. The same goes for Johnson.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
The election or otherwise of a president, has nothing to do with an issue that is reserved to the individual States themselves.
Yes, Mr Cameron is doing a very good job of British diplomacy, speaking to both sides in the US today to try and unlock more Ukraine aid.
But that's not quite true.
If it was solely reserved for individual states, then I would support it. But already you've had a State Court in Texas attempt to impose a nationwide ban on an FDA approved drug. Not a Texas ban, but a nationwide one.
It's completely untrue.
If it were "reserved to the individual States" that would be constitutional fact, and your (or anyone else's) support or otherwise would be irrelevant.
What the Dobbs ruling did was to say that women have no constitutionally protected right to choose to have an abortion.
Because the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion.
Roe v Wade was the duff judgement, and the last 60 years of US history on the subject stem from that.
More importantly, the 10th Amendment says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States ..." So anything not explicitly federal is state. Abortion isn't explicitly federal, so it's a state matter. Roe was an end-run around that, and all the contortions about privacy in penumbras was so much sophistry. And that's why it's been controversial ever since.
Off topic, but important: "Canada's spy agency believes the Chinese government "clandestinely and deceptively" interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections — and a top secret briefing note discussed at the Foreign Interference Commission shows the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) told the Prime Minister's Office about it in February 2023.
(Is there a list of the countries where Xi, Putin, and the Mullahs have interfered -- or tried to - in elections?)
Probably a rather shorter list of those where they haven't...
Given the number of places that interfere with, rig, or otherwise influence elections in their own country for benefit of the ruling autocrat or political party, the Chinese may regard their efforts in most other places as redundant.
Pete Buttigieg minus the elephant in the room would trounce Trump,.
Sadly I don’t see a gay candidate winning the Presidency.
His problem isn’t that he’s gay, it’s that he’s been utterly terrible at the transport brief for the last three years. He’ll happily turn up to the opening of a city bus station, but won’t be seen for weeks when there’s a train crash or a bridge falls down.
At Biden's stage of life he really needs a decent Veep
Harris ain't that. I bet she's costing him in the polling
If I were President (I would not carry oh no small change), I'd want Pete
Stuck with what he's got (I cannot speak as to her quality myself), much as the Dems were stuck with him once he decided he wanted to rerun.
From what I've seen of Pete he seems very good.
US Secretary of Transportation is currently facing a HUGE challenge: the aftermath of Francis Scott Key Bridge Crash & Collapse.
How well he hits the high notes (ahem) may have impact on 2024 election, esp. in Pennsylvania, the nearest swing state to Baltimore, and where Democratic stronghold of metro Philadelphia is significantly impacted by disruptions to I-95 corridor.
I've been following the recovery works in Baltimore fairly closely (from a distance, obvs...) and it seems things are going reasonably well atm, despite weather that's not been ideal. Opening a temporary shallow-draft channel quickly will not make a massive difference to the port, but it's a start. I bet they're wishing they had a larger crane than 1,000 tonne available, given that they can only use a fraction of its maximum capacity.
Incidentally, another cargo ship lost power in New York the other day. These things happen surprisingly often, but don't get reported on. Shame on the stupid tinfoil-hatted idiots who screeched about Chinese hackers (see @Leon).
HOPE not hate @hopenothate · 1h 💥NEW: Conservative Birmingham City Councillor Rick Payne, has been suspended after a HOPE not hate investigation revealed he was spreading vile Islamophobia and racism from an anonymous Twitter account.
ON TOPIC - NYT - Arizona Upholds 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban
The state’s highest court said the law, moribund for decades under Roe v. Wade, was now enforceable, but put the decision on hold for a lower court to hear other challenges to the law.
I think Biden will win over Trump, but it's clearly neck and neck.
Trump 2 the return would be a disaster, for Ukraine especially.
I wish Joe didn't always look as if he's about to fall over when he's walking. To the extent I have an electoral concern that is it. Not how he speaks but that visible physical frailty.
My nightmare scenario is Biden either dies or becomes seriously ill just before the election . Not only handing the Presidency to Trump but effecting loads of downballot races .
I would just gently say be kind to yourself and avoid, if possible, too much negative thinking about Trump who is highly unlikely to be the next POTUS though you can cross your fingers along with mine
Pete Buttigieg minus the elephant in the room would trounce Trump,.
Sadly I don’t see a gay candidate winning the Presidency.
His problem isn’t that he’s gay, it’s that he’s been utterly terrible at the transport brief for the last three years. He’ll happily turn up to the opening of a city bus station, but won’t be seen for weeks when there’s a train crash or a bridge falls down.
I hope Trump doesn't win. Better hope Trump doesn't win. Not only will women be worse off, we will have a much much bigger and more direct russia problem on our borders.
(Cameron makes Sunak look like a bumbling amateur in this video. I am not pro conservative, but this is an expert politician at work. Very professional - this is the kind of material the tories need. 10 people of that calibre to stand a chance)
He’s on a different level - in rhetoric, confidence, maturity - from his front bench peers.
It really highlights the lack of talent and competence caused by BJs cull in 2019. The populists that replaced them had nothing ... there is just nothing except grievance and emotion. But governance needs more. Let's get this straight: Cameron and his lot brought brutal ideologically driven austerity on the country.... but that is still better than the horror inflicted on the country by the popcons and brexit. Dear me.
The absence of talent in the Tory ranks was started mainly by Cameron's absolute betrayal of trust in abandoning ship at exactly the moment it was essential he saw through the, entirely foreseeable, consequences of his own policies. The party has never recovered.
How long do you think Cameron and Osborne would have been allowed to remain in charge of Brexit negotiations by the ERG?
Cameron was PM, not the ERG. If they had had the numbers to oust him and did so, then it would their responsibility. Most Tory MPs were centrists.
I don't think you could have someone who led the losing side running negotiations for a policy he did not advocate.
Though one could say that having no plans in place if the referendum was lost was plain irresponsible and buggering off within 24 hours was plain dereliction of duty.
Perhaps he believed the Leave side who said it would be the easiest trade deal in history and no deal was Project Fear bollocks.
FWIW - I know for a fact that Gove and Johnson spent 21st of June to 23rd of June 2016 trying to ensure there wasn't a vote of confidence against Dave is Remain won.
There were enough of the ERG ready to trigger a confidence vote.
Which is to Gove and Johnson's credit.
They genuinely thought Remain were going to win.
I went to bed that night content after Farage had told the nation the defeat of Leave was so close he would be pushing for a second EURef.
Pete Buttigieg minus the elephant in the room would trounce Trump,.
Sadly I don’t see a gay candidate winning the Presidency.
His problem isn’t that he’s gay, it’s that he’s been utterly terrible at the transport brief for the last three years. He’ll happily turn up to the opening of a city bus station, but won’t be seen for weeks when there’s a train crash or a bridge falls down.
He was at the bridge three days ago.
He still wont be "seen" at the bridge by people watching and reading right wing news.....
Comments
As an aside, should they manage to get an MP elected, would that be the first time that a member answerable to a limited company was elected to the Mother of Parliaments?
IMO the issue for Mr Cameron is building a real bridge between rhetoric and delivery, and his questionable record around doing that when in the top job.
I've had a really tough stint at work. Last day off was Easter Monday, and I've worked eighty one hours in the eight days since
I've also had some quite fun holiday related coincidences..
There are two streets on my route named after Saints. On the first, a thirty house street, there's a couple I get on really well with. The wife told me yesterday that her cousin is doing the Camino at the same time as me, but in the right direction, so we might cross paths
On the second Saint street, which has just five houses, there's a couple who have done the first two stages of the Camino over the last two years' Spring holidays, and are doing the final stage to Santiago at the same time that I start. I might well also bump into them
In the same FIVE HOUSE street there's another couple I get on well with. Her daughter lives just outside Pamplona, the last city en route to France, and has rooms she rents out. I've been given her contact details; she's been told about my adventure and is really hoping that I'll be able to stay a night at hers
All from the only thirty five houses on Saint streets, out of nearly a thousand houses, on my route
Last time state houses and officials did not seem prepared for the attempt, too many of them held firm, willing to talk a good game but let the courts toss out the spurious challenges and then reject taking action themselves.
This time many people were elected on the basis they would have gone along with overturning the election, and the vast majority of GOP voters support that and think the election was stolen. Believing that, why wouldn't they go further this time if they can?
If Trump does not win legitimately there will be violence from his supporters, and stronger attempts to overthrow it, unless the loss is overwhelming.
If Trump does win legitimately expect at least some number of Dems to copy at least a few of the tactics he employed last time.
And were/are English boroughs, and City of London, "limited" corporations?
Esher good,
Eben-Esher good.
How to make a c. 20% lead look really narrow.
Simples. Just take out all the percentage shares.
Which is a great name. Sadly they no longer play at Watersheddings. An evocative name which conjured up the reality of horizontal sleet in September.
Stage 1 - deny there is a problem, or say that the problem is the fault of underlings
Stage 2 - If stage 1 fails, find a single person or small group of people among your group to blame the problem on disproportionately, to insulate the systems that allow it to happen and the people who by and large fill out the top ranks of those systems.
This is probably one of those 'problem with the orchard, not a few apples' situations.
My impression is that it is struggling, but possibly one of those places that may eventually benefit from a northern renaissance.
What a despicable woman .
We've also had the Labour leaflet today. With around 20% Undecided, Khan's lead, substantial as it is, isn't insurmountable. Labour will be working hard to combat complacency in Inner London and ensuring their vote holds up in Outer London - if Labour can run the Conservatives close in Outer London and win Inner London they'll be home fairly easily.
The other truth is probably if you dislike Khan so much you want him out, the idea of voting for Susan Hall (I know) might not be wholly unapalatable and Khan is not widely liked. She is the only alternative but her utterances have done little for her credibility and her only hope is a very low Inner London turnout and a big Conservative vote in the Outer suburbs.
Tram and some inward investment is slowly improving the town centre, lots of unused Victorian buildings earmarked for, or undergoing, redevelopment.
Thread on the history:
https://twitter.com/PavSingh84/status/1777585734565687688
It's a massive collective failure of accountability and responsibility which aided and abetted the antics of both Fujitsu and senior Post Office management and enabled them to get away with actions which sound bad because they were bad.
I understand the partisan points scoring on all sides - politics is rough trade as someone once said - but it's undignified and unhelpful. 30 years of failure at all levels deserves so much more and so much better. A collective mea culpa would be a start and perhaps helping the victims should be the priority rather than the tedious game of pinning the blame on the scapegoat du jour.
TSE
Nigelb
MattW
DavidL
MarqueeMark
Moi
I hope it's much less exclusive by August.
That might help explain why the Republican platform has been, since 1980, pro-life. And why every Republcian president since then has tried to place pro-life judges on our courts. (With varying success, depending on which party controlled the Senate.)
Second, on both sides, the strongest supporters are women. The demonstrators against abortion are almost all women -- often women who have more than one child. (For an example, take a look at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett:
"In 1999, Barrett married fellow Notre Dame Law School graduate Jesse M. Barrett, a partner at SouthBank Legal – LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC, in South Bend, Indiana,[215] and a law professor at Notre Dame Law School.[216] Previously, Jesse Barrett had worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana for 13 years.[217] The couple live in South Bend and have seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti, one in 2005 and one after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.[32][218] Their youngest biological child has Down syndrome."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett
Third, there is wide variety in our state laws on abortion, just as there is variety in the laws in the nations of Europe.
Fourth, the importance of this issue to many voters is one of the reason the parties have been becoming more uniform on the issue. As many know, when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he signed a law legalizing abortion. As few know, Jesse Jackson was opposed to abortion early in his political career. A that time about 30 percent of abortions were performed on black women, a fact that caused him to use "holocaust" to describe that loss of black babies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson#Stance_on_abortion
The Boroughs still have a lot of responsibility - the Newham Mayor can make a lot of changes and decisions without reference to the Mayor of London.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/09/can-you-smell-what-the-rock-is-cooking-could-it-be-the-most-surreal-presidential-bid-yet
(Is that a pic of him doing the Haka ?)
Trump 2 the return would be a disaster, for Ukraine especially.
Is that you? I know you despise him but do you have the requisite faith in America?
She came across as deeply nasty and rather stupid.
She showed no compassion whatsoever for Gaza civilians, no compassion for the people she wants to deport plane after plane-load of to Rwanda (completely forgetting that that the initial maximum would have been 200 people).
I watched most of the testimony and got the impression that the LD ministers Davey and Swinson copped the worst of it, although in his short ministerial tenure Lamb was given some credit as being the first minister to take Bates seriously. Davey's role as party leader means that he's the one that matters.
Before piling onto the LDs let's remember that they were only junior coalition partners and the scandal must have come to the attention of No 10 and Treasury because MPs were taking up the cause as well. In the 9 years of Conservative government that followed the coalition, we have seen the Post Office being given carte blanche to try and make things go away in the courts and there's an absence of proper recompense even to this day. That means that a myriad of Conservatives and especially Sunak are pretty culpable too.
Financially it will clearly be left to Labour to eventually pick up the tab.
Harris ain't that. I bet she's costing him in the polling
If I were President (I would not carry oh no small change), I'd want Pete
Also, only 17 out of 82 PB Prediction Competition entrants thought Trump would win.
From what I've seen of Pete he seems very good.
Trump is going to so unravel in the campaign that indies wont vote for him in the end.
The document, described by one lawyer appearing before the commission's public inquiry as "remarkable," was tabled on Monday."
source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pmo-briefing-leaks-1.7167090
(Is there a list of the countries where Xi, Putin, and the Mullahs have interfered -- or tried to - in elections?)
Typically may help carry their home states. OR not.
Re: 2024, the political pain of ditching Kamala Harris with (some) Black voters, would outweigh any advantages of a potential (esp. non-Black) replacement.
Note that last POTUS to change VPs was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice: 1940 (Garner out, Wallace in); and 1944 (Wallace out, Truman in).
ADDENDUM - Re: health & related of President, worth noting that it was strong concern re: FDR's health & longevity, that prompted inner circle with govt & Dem party, to work successfully to replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman.
However, FDR himself apparently did NOT share these concerns. But went along, mainly because he didn't think it was that big a deal, in summer of '44, who(m) was gonna be his VP for the 4th term.
Roe v Wade was the duff judgement, and the last 60 years of US history on the subject stem from that.
Cognitive dissonance kicks in, which helps convince them they're right as well.
Sadly I don’t see a gay candidate winning the Presidency.
If they don’t answer to the shareholders, then you are taking about complete unaccountability. Literally.
Accountability is like risk. Idiots think you can put it in a box and sell it to someone. Anyone says yes to that, I’ve got some Greek CDS, low mileage.
As we have seen with certain hospital trusts, the combination of a large organisation and the belief that they are a Public Service gives an arrogant belief that they *should* be unaccountable. That they are doing Gods Work and some dead grannies is a fair price.
How well he hits the high notes (ahem) may have impact on 2024 election, esp. in Pennsylvania, the nearest swing state to Baltimore, and where Democratic stronghold of metro Philadelphia is significantly impacted by disruptions to I-95 corridor.
The state’s highest court said the law, moribund for decades under Roe v. Wade, was now enforceable, but put the decision on hold for a lower court to hear other challenges to the law.
Incidentally, another cargo ship lost power in New York the other day. These things happen surprisingly often, but don't get reported on. Shame on the stupid tinfoil-hatted idiots who screeched about Chinese hackers (see @Leon).
@hopenothate
·
1h
💥NEW: Conservative Birmingham City Councillor Rick Payne, has been suspended after a HOPE not hate investigation revealed he was spreading vile Islamophobia and racism from an anonymous Twitter account.
https://twitter.com/hopenothate