The last July GE was in 1945, the 5th. I suppose possible then, the 4th, before the holiday season really gets going but 1945 not a good omen for the Tories!
Tories would probably take a 1945 outcome (197 seats) right now.
And LAB would get around 375 seats on that basis which Keir would be very pleased with 👍
One of my betting steers for football is to look at backing the draw when both teams would be very happy with that. Maybe it can be applied to this coming GE on Oct 24th. In which case what's in the sweet spot is probably Labour majority of 50 to 75.
(but I think it'll be bigger than that)
You are right in principle, Kin, but with FPTP it is so difficult to calibrate the size of the majority. As you know, the difference between a small majority and a landslide is just a few percentage points.
That is why I shot high with my prediction of 245 in Ben's Excellent Competition. I won't mention this too often if it turns out to be close.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
Culture is a weird thing. We are all social animals at heart and it is unusual for someone to have the moral strength not to behave as those around them are doing. I am not sure in this case the question even crossed her mind.
Am I unusual then? I have not found this particularly hard though it is lonely and can be difficult. Though my job did put me in the privileged position of having to be the one asking difficult questions, which perhaps helped. But it is surely the essence of being a professional that you have to be able and willing to speak truth to power.
You are certainly right that organisations can easily develop a sort of ethical blindness so that people within it do not even realise that what they are doing is wrong. But that is why professionals like lawyers need to have that professional conscience.
It was telling that when counsel for the inquiry put the note to her in which Vennells wrote about Crichton putting her professional integrity above the interests of the firm, Crichton barely reacted or even agreed to it. It was almost as if she didn't realise that it was a compliment, even if Vennells didn't intend it as such.
And what the hell does that say about Vennells, a priest, that she thought having personal integrity was a criticism?! And the CoE wanted to make her a Bishop?!?
The fact Vennells wrote that is one of the most damning pieces of evidence in the inquiry so far imo.
The advice about deliberately not disclosing evidence and hiding it - Womble Bond Dickinson wrote that advice - is even worse. Lawyers openly advising a client to break the law and hide what they are doing ...... WTAF!
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
The purpose of the Rwanda nonsense isn't to get people to Rwanda or even deter more boat arrivals - it would be an obvious failure if those were its objectives.
It's goal, at which it has been largely succesful, is to focus attention on the relatively small number irregular maritime arrivals and away from the several million completely legal arrivals that the tories have had to sanction in order to ameliorate the completely forseeable economic consequences of Brexit. Looked at on those terms, it is succeeding and will save the tories some seats.
It's a cynical policy aimed to diguise previous catastrophic misjudgments, aimed at the elderly, racist and stupid. Those policies remain the singular political niche at which the tories excel.
Its odd because we were told that the consequences of a Leave vote were to include mass unemployment together with mass emigration.
After a vote, it is the winner's manifesto that is tested, not the loser's.
Well we got lower unemployment, higher pay, more spending on the NHS and control of migration from Eastern Europe so it was pretty much fulfilled.
What has destroyed the government have been lockdown parties, endless sleaze and Dizzy Lizzy pushing economic buttons like a five year old.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
So logically, if it is not their home, all renters are homeless? Big news.
When their contract ends and the landlord doesn't wish to renew, they are.
In Peru, after 10 years, tenants get quite strong rights.
So, as it comes up to the 10 year anniversary of renting a place, everyone packs up and leaves. Because only an insane landlord would let them stay 10 years and 1 day.
The Rwanda Act being now in law is relevant to calculating the date of the election.
If you assume that in fact it cannot work with regard to stopping the boats, then the GE has to be held at a point before that becomes obvious, and where the government still has a plausible (to populist voters) account of the way it's all going to work very soon unless you let Labour wreck the wonderful plan.
Which, probably, means sooner rather than later, depending on the timescale of legal challenges, if they get that far. July?
Is it possible that Sunak believes that it will work, and his Cabinet and advisors all either agree, or dare not say otherwise?
So when will the byelection be in Richmond, Yorkshire?
2026 or 2027?
If we are to believe Rishi will be angling for a tech job in California, then I'd look at his daughters' ages and how they relate to school ages in Britain and America.
Ditto. When an MP he was helpful to the campaign I am involved in even though he did not have any constituents (that we or he were aware of) impacted. He was skilled at writing short to the point letters which was appreciated. Something I have to say my MP is rather good at as well. I suspect something MPs are required to do to get ministers and civil servants not to deflect from the questions being asked, although they seem to manage that anyway eg PMQs
The last July GE was in 1945, the 5th. I suppose possible then, the 4th, before the holiday season really gets going but 1945 not a good omen for the Tories!
Tories would probably take a 1945 outcome (197 seats) right now.
And LAB would get around 375 seats on that basis which Keir would be very pleased with 👍
One of my betting steers for football is to look at backing the draw when both teams would be very happy with that. Maybe it can be applied to this coming GE on Oct 24th. In which case what's in the sweet spot is probably Labour majority of 50 to 75.
(but I think it'll be bigger than that)
You are right in principle, Kin, but with FPTP it is so difficult to calibrate the size of the majority. As you know, the difference between a small majority and a landslide is just a few percentage points.
That is why I shot high with my prediction of 245 in Ben's Excellent Competition. I won't mention this too often if it turns out to be close.
I did 112 on that iirc. You and me were actually quite early on the Labour landslide bus, weren't we. Sadly no spread markets around to take advantage of. Too late for the big killing now - unless it is 245 of course.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Surely it is both.
Levelling up is something I, as someone based in the North East, would love to see put into practise and it is something we need. But We should be bringing the rest of the country up to Londons level, not lowering London to the rest of the nation. Easier said than done.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
There is more to the PO scandal than lawyers. What about accountancy and auditing and even commissioning computer systems? Corporate structure and relationships to government? The ease with which MPs were fobbed off?
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
No I don't think that is quite right, DJ.
The Inquiry is looking for structural problems and principles rather than individual culpability, although in seeking the former it has to examine the latter. The blame business will start if and when we see prosecutions.
Those of us following the saga know perfectly well by now what the problem was. The PO is a thoroughly dysfunctional organisation in which incompetence and dishonesty had become the norm. This involved widespread illegal behaviour by numerous individuals, notably amongst the lawyers. One would hope to see prosecutions in due course.
It also housed some of the most incompetent executives you could ever expect to meet in a business orgaisation, notably amongst its Board members. Some may be done in a court of law, but you would certainly expect them to be without gainful employment ever again. That at least would be something.
The biggest lesson to be learned however concerns the relationship between the PO and Government. Agian, this was a dysfunctional one. We can expect to hear more of this in the next few weeks, but even now we know - if we never did before - that a passive and incurious Government that just leaves the businesses it owns to run themselves without proper scrutiny is asking for disaster.
That at least is something.
Agreed.
And the fundamental questions about computer systems, their auditing and evidential value?
What about the Establishment's willingness to look the other way? I can believe no-one in SW1 reads Computer Weekly but what about Private Eye's coverage going back years?
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Surely it is both.
Levelling up is something I, as someone based in the North East, would love to see put into practise and it is something we need. But We should be bringing the rest of the country up to Londons level, not lowering London to the rest of the nation. Easier said than done.
Why would you want to have London's unaffordability, inequality and congestion ?
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
She was clearly under a lot of pressure to do what her seniors wanted, and struggled to reconcile the right thing with doing what was needed to keep her job. It’s not an enviable position, and most of us would be pushed some way down that line, but it’s fair to say that her point of no return didn’t come early enough and the haziness of her recollections was thoroughly unconvincing. That she couldn’t recall whether or not she’s had a public shouting match with the CEO in the Costa Coffee in Old Street is simply not credible; it’s something anyone could be quite certain did, or didn’t, happen, however long ago.
Agreed. Her breaking point - when she went to get advice on a constructive dismissal claim - was, according to her, losing the HR bit of her role.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Again, it comes back to culture. It appears that lawyers need to be reminded of their professional duties and standards. If lawyers had done their jobs properly at every stage this would not have happened. Justice is not courts, however impartial. Justice is a legal system composed of individuals who have professional and moral duties to do the right thing. This does not stop them representing one side or the other, that is essential for the system, but it does require them to be careful, impartial and as objective as they can be.
How do we do this? One of the failures of the inquiries into banking standards following the GFC was how so much illegal and immoral behaviour was swept under the carpet and personal responsibility was not enforced. We need to avoid this error. This involves prosecutions and disbarments for those who failed. Not because this makes it right or out of some form of vengeance, but because it is important to change the culture of those in such positions. They have to realise that they are personally accountable for their actions. It is long past time the prosecutions started and the Law Society really needs to look at itself as well. We need to change the way inhouse lawyers think (not just them in fairness but that seems to be the main problem here).
Agree wholeheartedly with this.
The external lawyers too. It was an external law firm which wrote the astonishing advice about not disclosing relevant material and doing it in a way which would hide what they were doing.
The Law Society and SRA are however chocolate teapots.
And the Met (groan!) has announced it won't even start looking at the evidence until after the inquiry and oh there are lots of documents and it will all take too long and we need more money and blah blah. So they need a solid poker waved around their heads and told to get on with it now. They can be doing all the preparatory work right now instead of their usual bleating and uselessness.
As a founder member of The Royal Society For The Protection Of The Reputation of Comestible Tableware... Please stop declaring useless things are like "chocolate teapots"
If you have a chocolate teapot, you have chocolate. If you give one to an 8 year old, they will crow with delight and consume it.
If you gave the Law Society to an 8 year old, they would probably cry.
Equally (although I’m not going to search for the link) it’s been shown that a chocolate teapot would actually work successfully (once) - which is clearly one more time than the law society and SRA
Doesn't it depend on the size and thickness of the pot? If it were large enough for several gallons, and an inch thick, it might do a few.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Surely it is both.
Levelling up is something I, as someone based in the North East, would love to see put into practise and it is something we need. But We should be bringing the rest of the country up to Londons level, not lowering London to the rest of the nation. Easier said than done.
But we do know how to build new towns, or at least we did between the wars, and after the war.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
I always associate Frank Field with the phrase "think the unthinkable". RIP.
Didn't the last Labour government ask him to do that, and then sack him when he did ?
Thinking the unthinkable was okay but they didn't want him to talk about it.
And then there are his views on the welfare state, which place him firmly in a category all of his own, certainly within Labour. Put most simply, he believes it degrades the very people it is meant to serve, that it creates a benefit-dependent, work-shy sub-class. 'It's our fault as politicians to have put temptation in front of people,' he has said. 'If the system pays people more on incapacity benefit [than jobseekers' allowance], it's human nature to claim the higher amount. We have to remove the incentive.' In short, Frank Field wants to sack the nanny from the nanny state.
It was because of these maverick ideas that he was invited, when New Labour was elected in 1997, to serve under Harriet Harman at the Department of Social Security to plan reform of the benefits system. Or, at least, that was why he thought he had been asked to do the job. The green paper he produced was certainly radical: he wanted more people to take out private pensions rather than depend on the state. He wanted an attack on benefit fraud and tighter controls on incapacity benefit as a way of getting more people back to work. He wanted the right to payments from the state to be matched with responsibilities by those receiving the cash. He made it clear that he detested means-testing, regarding it as demeaning and wanted, instead, flat-rate benefits.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
France.
France is highly centralised compared with some others but not as much as the UK - far less disparity of income and employment between the richest and poorest regions.
Italy is a bit more British in this respect, albeit it's not the capital it's the Northern plain. And several of the smaller European countries: Greece in particular, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, all the Baltics.
AI SUMMARY PART 1 The text discusses the aftermath of the Civil War in 1865, highlighting the devastation and economic ruin it caused. Despite the horrors of that war, modern polling suggests that many Americans believe a repeat of the Civil War is likely in the coming decade. However, experts believe that a massive war in the US is highly unlikely due to the country's stability and democratic institutions. While some indicators point to potential unrest, such as deep mistrust in institutions, the likelihood of a full-blown civil war is low.
The text also delves into the conditions that could potentially lead to a civil war, such as national polarization, weakened institutions, and the legitimization of violence. While some experts have raised concerns about the possibility of internal conflict in the US, the country's functioning democracy and lack of extreme factionalism make a large-scale civil war improbable. Additionally, the text explores the role of social media in exacerbating tensions and spreading misinformation, which could contribute to heightened conflict.
In terms of what a second Civil War in America might look like, experts suggest that it would likely be different from traditional wars, with a focus on insurgency rather than large-scale battles. The lack of clear geographic divides and the mixed political makeup of individual states make a full-blown civil war less likely. While history offers some models for potential conflict scenarios, experts emphasize that warning signs of insurgency may not be easily recognizable until it is too late. Overall, while the idea of a second Civil War in America is a topic of discussion, the likelihood of such a scenario remains low.
The Guardian kept quiet about New Labours calamitous plans to raid DB pensions. A raid that signalled the death knell for DB pensions for the private sector and, due to the migration away from equities in pension funds, yielded very little for the Treasury too.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
She was clearly under a lot of pressure to do what her seniors wanted, and struggled to reconcile the right thing with doing what was needed to keep her job. It’s not an enviable position, and most of us would be pushed some way down that line, but it’s fair to say that her point of no return didn’t come early enough and the haziness of her recollections was thoroughly unconvincing. That she couldn’t recall whether or not she’s had a public shouting match with the CEO in the Costa Coffee in Old Street is simply not credible; it’s something anyone could be quite certain did, or didn’t, happen, however long ago.
Agreed. Her breaking point - when she went to get advice on a constructive dismissal claim - was, according to her, losing the HR bit of her role.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Again, it comes back to culture. It appears that lawyers need to be reminded of their professional duties and standards. If lawyers had done their jobs properly at every stage this would not have happened. Justice is not courts, however impartial. Justice is a legal system composed of individuals who have professional and moral duties to do the right thing. This does not stop them representing one side or the other, that is essential for the system, but it does require them to be careful, impartial and as objective as they can be.
How do we do this? One of the failures of the inquiries into banking standards following the GFC was how so much illegal and immoral behaviour was swept under the carpet and personal responsibility was not enforced. We need to avoid this error. This involves prosecutions and disbarments for those who failed. Not because this makes it right or out of some form of vengeance, but because it is important to change the culture of those in such positions. They have to realise that they are personally accountable for their actions. It is long past time the prosecutions started and the Law Society really needs to look at itself as well. We need to change the way inhouse lawyers think (not just them in fairness but that seems to be the main problem here).
Agree wholeheartedly with this.
The external lawyers too. It was an external law firm which wrote the astonishing advice about not disclosing relevant material and doing it in a way which would hide what they were doing.
The Law Society and SRA are however chocolate teapots.
And the Met (groan!) has announced it won't even start looking at the evidence until after the inquiry and oh there are lots of documents and it will all take too long and we need more money and blah blah. So they need a solid poker waved around their heads and told to get on with it now. They can be doing all the preparatory work right now instead of their usual bleating and uselessness.
As a founder member of The Royal Society For The Protection Of The Reputation of Comestible Tableware... Please stop declaring useless things are like "chocolate teapots"
If you have a chocolate teapot, you have chocolate. If you give one to an 8 year old, they will crow with delight and consume it.
If you gave the Law Society to an 8 year old, they would probably cry.
Equally (although I’m not going to search for the link) it’s been shown that a chocolate teapot would actually work successfully (once) - which is clearly one more time than the law society and SRA
Yeah, sponsored by Nestle and involved people at York Uni, I think (Nestle having a base in York at the old Rowntree sites). Low enough fat content (i.e. fairly pure dark chocolate) and it was surprisingly resilient.
The PO approach was to make a teapot from lard and then blame the subcontractors making the tea for any tea losses, while also surreptitiously drilling holes in some teapots. Have I pushed that analogy too far?
ETA: Ah, maybe just Nestle boffins* per Malmesbury 's link *if they count as such
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
She was clearly under a lot of pressure to do what her seniors wanted, and struggled to reconcile the right thing with doing what was needed to keep her job. It’s not an enviable position, and most of us would be pushed some way down that line, but it’s fair to say that her point of no return didn’t come early enough and the haziness of her recollections was thoroughly unconvincing. That she couldn’t recall whether or not she’s had a public shouting match with the CEO in the Costa Coffee in Old Street is simply not credible; it’s something anyone could be quite certain did, or didn’t, happen, however long ago.
Agreed. Her breaking point - when she went to get advice on a constructive dismissal claim - was, according to her, losing the HR bit of her role.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Again, it comes back to culture. It appears that lawyers need to be reminded of their professional duties and standards. If lawyers had done their jobs properly at every stage this would not have happened. Justice is not courts, however impartial. Justice is a legal system composed of individuals who have professional and moral duties to do the right thing. This does not stop them representing one side or the other, that is essential for the system, but it does require them to be careful, impartial and as objective as they can be.
How do we do this? One of the failures of the inquiries into banking standards following the GFC was how so much illegal and immoral behaviour was swept under the carpet and personal responsibility was not enforced. We need to avoid this error. This involves prosecutions and disbarments for those who failed. Not because this makes it right or out of some form of vengeance, but because it is important to change the culture of those in such positions. They have to realise that they are personally accountable for their actions. It is long past time the prosecutions started and the Law Society really needs to look at itself as well. We need to change the way inhouse lawyers think (not just them in fairness but that seems to be the main problem here).
Agree wholeheartedly with this.
The external lawyers too. It was an external law firm which wrote the astonishing advice about not disclosing relevant material and doing it in a way which would hide what they were doing.
The Law Society and SRA are however chocolate teapots.
And the Met (groan!) has announced it won't even start looking at the evidence until after the inquiry and oh there are lots of documents and it will all take too long and we need more money and blah blah. So they need a solid poker waved around their heads and told to get on with it now. They can be doing all the preparatory work right now instead of their usual bleating and uselessness.
As a founder member of The Royal Society For The Protection Of The Reputation of Comestible Tableware... Please stop declaring useless things are like "chocolate teapots"
If you have a chocolate teapot, you have chocolate. If you give one to an 8 year old, they will crow with delight and consume it.
If you gave the Law Society to an 8 year old, they would probably cry.
Equally (although I’m not going to search for the link) it’s been shown that a chocolate teapot would actually work successfully (once) - which is clearly one more time than the law society and SRA
Doesn't it depend on the size and thickness of the pot? If it were large enough for several gallons, and an inch thick, it might do a few.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
She was clearly under a lot of pressure to do what her seniors wanted, and struggled to reconcile the right thing with doing what was needed to keep her job. It’s not an enviable position, and most of us would be pushed some way down that line, but it’s fair to say that her point of no return didn’t come early enough and the haziness of her recollections was thoroughly unconvincing. That she couldn’t recall whether or not she’s had a public shouting match with the CEO in the Costa Coffee in Old Street is simply not credible; it’s something anyone could be quite certain did, or didn’t, happen, however long ago.
Agreed. Her breaking point - when she went to get advice on a constructive dismissal claim - was, according to her, losing the HR bit of her role.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Again, it comes back to culture. It appears that lawyers need to be reminded of their professional duties and standards. If lawyers had done their jobs properly at every stage this would not have happened. Justice is not courts, however impartial. Justice is a legal system composed of individuals who have professional and moral duties to do the right thing. This does not stop them representing one side or the other, that is essential for the system, but it does require them to be careful, impartial and as objective as they can be.
How do we do this? One of the failures of the inquiries into banking standards following the GFC was how so much illegal and immoral behaviour was swept under the carpet and personal responsibility was not enforced. We need to avoid this error. This involves prosecutions and disbarments for those who failed. Not because this makes it right or out of some form of vengeance, but because it is important to change the culture of those in such positions. They have to realise that they are personally accountable for their actions. It is long past time the prosecutions started and the Law Society really needs to look at itself as well. We need to change the way inhouse lawyers think (not just them in fairness but that seems to be the main problem here).
Agree wholeheartedly with this.
The external lawyers too. It was an external law firm which wrote the astonishing advice about not disclosing relevant material and doing it in a way which would hide what they were doing.
The Law Society and SRA are however chocolate teapots.
And the Met (groan!) has announced it won't even start looking at the evidence until after the inquiry and oh there are lots of documents and it will all take too long and we need more money and blah blah. So they need a solid poker waved around their heads and told to get on with it now. They can be doing all the preparatory work right now instead of their usual bleating and uselessness.
As a founder member of The Royal Society For The Protection Of The Reputation of Comestible Tableware... Please stop declaring useless things are like "chocolate teapots"
If you have a chocolate teapot, you have chocolate. If you give one to an 8 year old, they will crow with delight and consume it.
If you gave the Law Society to an 8 year old, they would probably cry.
Equally (although I’m not going to search for the link) it’s been shown that a chocolate teapot would actually work successfully (once) - which is clearly one more time than the law society and SRA
And now for a pointless post:
I have no actual knowledge on this, but assuming it is a normal thickness for a teapot and it is left to brew I find that exceedingly unlikely. Chocolate melts at 37C* and the water in the teapot will be almost 100C and water's specific heat is quite large so it loses a lot of heat for each degree lost.
* I don't actually know that but I believe the magic of chocolate is that its melting point is that of the temperature of the human body.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
The treasury in 1946 introduced a rule to help rebuild Britain. It made sense. Put infrastructure where it will help the most.
They had a formula. One of the key factors was local wages. The higher the wages the greater the likelihood of local growth being supported.
The Treasury is still using it.
I’d suggest this is why we have more regional inequality than almost any other European country.
I've seen various articles recently complaining about the usage of AI in recruitment.
Is there anything to it or is it just the usual problem of too many overeducated/underexperienced applicants for certain types of jobs ?
There are too many applicants. Everyone says go into computing but anyone looking for a tech job now is competing with tens of thousands let go from Microsoft, Google or Elon Musk's group, especially in America but also here. Foreign students who need sponsorship can forget it. Even people looking for basic retail jobs are now asked for experience.
Britain boasts a low unemployment rate but this is disguised by all those who have effectively given up so are not counted.
As for AI, especially in America they use a system called ATS to screen CVs before they reach any humans. I'm not sure it goes much further than that in most places, although some will be exploring the cutting edge.
AI SUMMARY PART 1 The text discusses the aftermath of the Civil War in 1865, highlighting the devastation and economic ruin it caused. Despite the horrors of that war, modern polling suggests that many Americans believe a repeat of the Civil War is likely in the coming decade. However, experts believe that a massive war in the US is highly unlikely due to the country's stability and democratic institutions. While some indicators point to potential unrest, such as deep mistrust in institutions, the likelihood of a full-blown civil war is low.
The text also delves into the conditions that could potentially lead to a civil war, such as national polarization, weakened institutions, and the legitimization of violence. While some experts have raised concerns about the possibility of internal conflict in the US, the country's functioning democracy and lack of extreme factionalism make a large-scale civil war improbable. Additionally, the text explores the role of social media in exacerbating tensions and spreading misinformation, which could contribute to heightened conflict.
In terms of what a second Civil War in America might look like, experts suggest that it would likely be different from traditional wars, with a focus on insurgency rather than large-scale battles. The lack of clear geographic divides and the mixed political makeup of individual states make a full-blown civil war less likely. While history offers some models for potential conflict scenarios, experts emphasize that warning signs of insurgency may not be easily recognizable until it is too late. Overall, while the idea of a second Civil War in America is a topic of discussion, the likelihood of such a scenario remains low.
AI SUMMARY PART 2: TYPES OF INSURGENCY The 2024 election in the United States is seen as a potential spark for an insurgency, with both right-wing and left-wing groups potentially resorting to violence.
Examples of such insurgencies are:
1. "Red Brigades". The growth of far-left groups, similar to Italy's Red Brigades, is a concern, as they may engage in kidnappings, robberies, and killings.
2. "Years of Lead". The "Years of Lead" in Italy, characterized by political violence, serve as a model for potential American insurgency.
3. "The Troubles". The Northern Irish Troubles, a low-intensity civil war, is also seen as a possible model for a future US civil war.
4. "La Violencia". The availability of guns in the US poses a unique challenge, as both insurgents and their opponents already have access to powerful weapons. The fear is that escalating attacks and retaliations could lead to widespread chaos and anarchy in the US. The example of the Colombian civil war, known as "La Violencia", is cited to illustrate the extreme violence that can occur when divisions escalate and ordinary people commit atrocities.
While the likelihood of a second American civil war is low, it is important to recognize the potential consequences of deep divisions and animosity within society.
The Guardian kept quiet about New Labours calamitous plans to raid DB pensions. A raid that signalled the death knell for DB pensions for the private sector and, due to the migration away from equities in pension funds, yielded very little for the Treasury too.
The Guardian kept quiet about New Labours calamitous plans to raid DB pensions. A raid that signalled the death knell for DB pensions for the private sector and, due to the migration away from equities in pension funds, yielded very little for the Treasury too.
nah, that's bollocks, what killed DB pensions was people living longer and falls in risk-free interest rates.
It's reasonable to argue that both were significant.
But the argument that you can raise a tax without any negative impacts was very typical of Labour 1997-2010. It clearly did have an impact on this generation's ability to provide for its old age. If the government is taking some of what is being put into a pension fund, there will be less pension to pay out at the end. Arguing that there is no impact is madness.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Well it would be an understatement to say the Met came to the St George’s Day march with a very different, much more confrontational, attitude, compared to other recent marches in the city.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
Never Trumpers still making the point. Hard to see Pennsylvania returning to Trump with these sort of numbers.
Trump's NY trial not going well. As well as his lawyer "losing credibility with the court" in suggesting that Trump was trying ever so hard not to break the gag order, the testimony of Mr David Pecker (ex National Enquirer) solidly backed up the prosecutor's notion of a conspiracy, moving the actions of Trump up from misdemeanour to felony.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
France.
France is highly centralised compared with some others but not as much as the UK - far less disparity of income and employment between the richest and poorest regions.
Italy is a bit more British in this respect, albeit it's not the capital it's the Northern plain. And several of the smaller European countries: Greece in particular, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, all the Baltics.
Disparity of income but also of cost - earning 10% more in London might not be much use if housing is 100% more.
There's little disparity of employment regionally:
Of course if we joined Schengen the small boats would stop overnight. We’d still have people claiming asylum or living here illegally but they would just come on the train or ferry.
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
No I don't think that is quite right, DJ.
The Inquiry is looking for structural problems and principles rather than individual culpability, although in seeking the former it has to examine the latter. The blame business will start if and when we see prosecutions.
Those of us following the saga know perfectly well by now what the problem was. The PO is a thoroughly dysfunctional organisation in which incompetence and dishonesty had become the norm. This involved widespread illegal behaviour by numerous individuals, notably amongst the lawyers. One would hope to see prosecutions in due course.
It also housed some of the most incompetent executives you could ever expect to meet in a business orgaisation, notably amongst its Board members. Some may be done in a court of law, but you would certainly expect them to be without gainful employment ever again. That at least would be something.
The biggest lesson to be learned however concerns the relationship between the PO and Government. Agian, this was a dysfunctional one. We can expect to hear more of this in the next few weeks, but even now we know - if we never did before - that a passive and incurious Government that just leaves the businesses it owns to run themselves without proper scrutiny is asking for disaster.
That at least is something.
Agreed.
And the fundamental questions about computer systems, their auditing and evidential value?
What about the Establishment's willingness to look the other way? I can believe no-one in SW1 reads Computer Weekly but what about Private Eye's coverage going back years?
Quite. I suspect it was largely a case of 'not my department'.
PE did a great job on the scandal, but it is a bit hit and miss. Computer Weekly was brilliant and its warnings really should have been picked up by the PO.
The Guardian kept quiet about New Labours calamitous plans to raid DB pensions. A raid that signalled the death knell for DB pensions for the private sector and, due to the migration away from equities in pension funds, yielded very little for the Treasury too.
nah, that's bollocks, what killed DB pensions was people living longer and falls in risk-free interest rates.
It's reasonable to argue that both were significant.
But the argument that you can raise a tax without any negative impacts was very typical of Labour 1997-2010. It clearly did have an impact on this generation's ability to provide for its old age. If the government is taking some of what is being put into a pension fund, there will be less pension to pay out at the end. Arguing that there is no impact is madness.
The classic was the auction of radio frequencies for use for mobile telephony.
The academics who designed the auction, to a spec provided by the government, pointed out that it didn't optimise for the public good. Just for the amount raised.
It ended up with Ed Balls trying to threaten that if a mobile company dropped out of the auction, the government would support a shareholder lawsuit. And with a fairly major die back in the roll out, investment cuts etc
Presume all these people will be up before the beak for climbing onto memorials to our glorious dead? Great to see a couple of Rangers fans showing solidarity with disrespecters of statchoos and flying the flag. Sorry, a flag.
The last July GE was in 1945, the 5th. I suppose possible then, the 4th, before the holiday season really gets going but 1945 not a good omen for the Tories!
Tories would probably take a 1945 outcome (197 seats) right now.
And LAB would get around 375 seats on that basis which Keir would be very pleased with 👍
One of my betting steers for football is to look at backing the draw when both teams would be very happy with that. Maybe it can be applied to this coming GE on Oct 24th. In which case what's in the sweet spot is probably Labour majority of 50 to 75.
(but I think it'll be bigger than that)
You are right in principle, Kin, but with FPTP it is so difficult to calibrate the size of the majority. As you know, the difference between a small majority and a landslide is just a few percentage points.
That is why I shot high with my prediction of 245 in Ben's Excellent Competition. I won't mention this too often if it turns out to be close.
I did 112 on that iirc. You and me were actually quite early on the Labour landslide bus, weren't we. Sadly no spread markets around to take advantage of. Too late for the big killing now - unless it is 245 of course.
I collared the Betfair bands early, but you are right. We really needed the spreads, and SI is a cautious outfit when it comes to Politics. They put up their markets late, and suspend them at the first whiff of grapeshot.
@Cyclefree Having just finished Browning’s Ordinary Men, I’d say you’re very unusual, in standing out for what is right.
Pauline Vennels is typical of the management of the C of E, who’ve spent decades driving it into the ground, rather than the average decent vicar on the ground.
I've seen various articles recently complaining about the usage of AI in recruitment.
Is there anything to it or is it just the usual problem of too many overeducated/underexperienced applicants for certain types of jobs ?
There are too many applicants. Everyone says go into computing but anyone looking for a tech job now is competing with tens of thousands let go from Microsoft, Google or Elon Musk's group, especially in America but also here. Foreign students who need sponsorship can forget it. Even people looking for basic retail jobs are now asked for experience.
Britain boasts a low unemployment rate but this is disguised by all those who have effectively given up so are not counted.
As for AI, especially in America they use a system called ATS to screen CVs before they reach any humans. I'm not sure it goes much further than that in most places, although some will be exploring the cutting edge.
It’s not “AI” being used in recruitment in most cases, but generalist HR types running automated keyword searches on hundreds of CVs to try and pick out a dozen candidates. You need to write your CV with this in mind, especially the old tech story of a specific technology or language being less than a year old before you see recruitment ads looking for a decade’s experience in it.
Large companies issuing dozen-page application forms for minimum-wage work, is a different problem, and must be totally demoralising for those at that end of the employment market.
(I can imagine Google or Microsoft using their actual primitive AI systems in recruitment, but they’re doing more laying-off than hiring at the moment).
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
What are they as a matter of interest, and why would they stop voyeuristic ogling of the Donaldson house?
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
France.
France is highly centralised compared with some others but not as much as the UK - far less disparity of income and employment between the richest and poorest regions.
Italy is a bit more British in this respect, albeit it's not the capital it's the Northern plain. And several of the smaller European countries: Greece in particular, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, all the Baltics.
Disparity of income but also of cost - earning 10% more in London might not be much use if housing is 100% more.
There's little disparity of employment regionally:
Never Trumpers still making the point. Hard to see Pennsylvania returning to Trump with these sort of numbers.
Trump's NY trial not going well. As well as his lawyer "losing credibility with the court" in suggesting that Trump was trying ever so hard not to break the gag order, the testimony of Mr David Pecker (ex National Enquirer) solidly backed up the prosecutor's notion of a conspiracy, moving the actions of Trump up from misdemeanour to felony.
Cue more impotent rage from the ex-President.
Still layable @ under 2.3. I do think that will become a "How could I not have done it?" by mid summer.
The Guardian kept quiet about New Labours calamitous plans to raid DB pensions. A raid that signalled the death knell for DB pensions for the private sector and, due to the migration away from equities in pension funds, yielded very little for the Treasury too.
nah, that's bollocks, what killed DB pensions was people living longer and falls in risk-free interest rates.
It's reasonable to argue that both were significant.
But the argument that you can raise a tax without any negative impacts was very typical of Labour 1997-2010. It clearly did have an impact on this generation's ability to provide for its old age. If the government is taking some of what is being put into a pension fund, there will be less pension to pay out at the end. Arguing that there is no impact is madness.
The impact of the dividend tax change on the ability for companies to fund long-term pension guarantees was trivial compared to the wider demographic and economic environment changes.
Re renting. I have rented around 11 (I think) properties in my younger days as a student and then a Post Doc. One final rent as a lecturer before we bought our current home. All of the previous rents I would not have regarded as my 'home' in a significant way as they were always going to be short term (non more than a year or two). This fitted the flexibility of the lifestyle. However for many of the renting population of the country (is it really 25 million) I expect they feel very differently about their rented properties, and do indeed call them their homes. I mean if you've lived in a council flat for years on end, it is your home. How we balance short term provision (for those who need it and want it), long term rents and the rights of the owners of the rents is the key.
So when will the byelection be in Richmond, Yorkshire?
2026 or 2027?
If we are to believe Rishi will be angling for a tech job in California, then I'd look at his daughters' ages and how they relate to school ages in Britain and America.
If we are to believe that he has already surrendered his Green Card, how easy is it to get another US resident visa after that?
Well it would be an understatement to say the Met came to the St George’s Day march with a very different, much more confrontational, attitude, compared to other recent marches in the city.
I think it was Tommy Robinson and his fascist mates who arrived with a much more confrontational attitude. They tried to break the agreed route, physically and aggressively.
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Surely it is both.
Levelling up is something I, as someone based in the North East, would love to see put into practise and it is something we need. But We should be bringing the rest of the country up to Londons level, not lowering London to the rest of the nation. Easier said than done.
But we do know how to build new towns, or at least we did between the wars, and after the war.
You are right. The restrictions put in place on urban sprawl by the post war planning system (green belt, T&CPA) were offset by government action to facilitate planned development in concentrated settlements in the form of new towns, making land available for private sector housebuilding supplemented by that by new town development corporations and local councils. Despite the green belt there was still plenty of land for housing development but just in specific planned locations to avoid random urban sprawl and ribbon development. Development of affordable housing was further encouraged by state subsidies for housebuilding by councils and new town development corporations.
So there were two sides to the state's involvement, one side restricting housing development and the other side promoting it. Now we just have the restrictions on steroids, while policies to promote housebuilding have disappeared. The change started to take effect from around the 1980s and has been manifest in a series of successive private house price booms, as supply dried up but demand didn't. Housing was still very affordable in London in the 1970s, the ring of new towns around the city took away a lot of the demand there and London's population was pretty static.
Until Thatcher stepped in there was, incidentally, also a major programme of real levelling up in the form of active regional policy, as opposed to the ficticious programme that is today non-existant other than in the form of government public relations.
Re renting. I have rented around 11 (I think) properties in my younger days as a student and then a Post Doc. One final rent as a lecturer before we bought our current home. All of the previous rents I would not have regarded as my 'home' in a significant way as they were always going to be short term (non more than a year or two). This fitted the flexibility of the lifestyle. However for many of the renting population of the country (is it really 25 million) I expect they feel very differently about their rented properties, and do indeed call them their homes. I mean if you've lived in a council flat for years on end, it is your home. How we balance short term provision (for those who need it and want it), long term rents and the rights of the owners of the rents is the key.
Build sh!tloads more houses, while restricting immigration - so the landlords end up fighting for the tenants.
Never Trumpers still making the point. Hard to see Pennsylvania returning to Trump with these sort of numbers.
Trump's NY trial not going well. As well as his lawyer "losing credibility with the court" in suggesting that Trump was trying ever so hard not to break the gag order, the testimony of Mr David Pecker (ex National Enquirer) solidly backed up the prosecutor's notion of a conspiracy, moving the actions of Trump up from misdemeanour to felony.
Cue more impotent rage from the ex-President.
He also appears deeply frustrated by the lack of supportive crowds (or indeed any crowds), to the extent that he's making up shit to explain their absence. Maggie Haberman of the NYT was one of his more useful media channels; he's now turned on her, too.
Thousands of people were turned away from the Courthouse in Lower Manhattan by steel stanchions and police*, literally blocks from the tiny side door from where I enter and leave. It is an armed camp to keep people away. Maggot Hagerman of The Failing New York Times, falsely reported that I was disappointed with the crowds. No, I’m disappointed with Maggot, and her lack of writing skill... https://twitter.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1782891637858820507
Well it would be an understatement to say the Met came to the St George’s Day march with a very different, much more confrontational, attitude, compared to other recent marches in the city.
I think it was Tommy Robinson and his fascist mates who arrived with a much more confrontational attitude. They tried to break the agreed route, physically and aggressively.
They are idiots. They just needed to bring Palestinian flags and they could have done what they wanted...
I always associate Frank Field with the phrase "think the unthinkable". RIP.
Didn't the last Labour government ask him to do that, and then sack him when he did ?
Thinking the unthinkable was okay but they didn't want him to talk about it.
And then there are his views on the welfare state, which place him firmly in a category all of his own, certainly within Labour. Put most simply, he believes it degrades the very people it is meant to serve, that it creates a benefit-dependent, work-shy sub-class. 'It's our fault as politicians to have put temptation in front of people,' he has said. 'If the system pays people more on incapacity benefit [than jobseekers' allowance], it's human nature to claim the higher amount. We have to remove the incentive.' In short, Frank Field wants to sack the nanny from the nanny state.
It was because of these maverick ideas that he was invited, when New Labour was elected in 1997, to serve under Harriet Harman at the Department of Social Security to plan reform of the benefits system. Or, at least, that was why he thought he had been asked to do the job. The green paper he produced was certainly radical: he wanted more people to take out private pensions rather than depend on the state. He wanted an attack on benefit fraud and tighter controls on incapacity benefit as a way of getting more people back to work. He wanted the right to payments from the state to be matched with responsibilities by those receiving the cash. He made it clear that he detested means-testing, regarding it as demeaning and wanted, instead, flat-rate benefits.
I hate the phrase "work shy", because it misses the point:
The tax and benefits system discourages a significant proportion of people from working. They are not "work shy", they are merely economically rational. Working simply does not pay.
Which, in turn, has meant the UK has sucked in immigrants to do the jobs we have economically discouraged Brits from doing.
The goal being the elimination of Ukraine as a nation.
With the passage of US military aid for Kyiv imminent, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu says his army will step up attacks on Ukraine and won't let up until the goal of Moscow's brutal invasion is achieved: “We will increase the intensity of attacks on logistics centers and storage bases for Western weapons. The Russian Armed Forces will continue to carry out assigned tasks until the goals of the special operation are fully achieved,” Shoigu said. - RIA Novosti https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1782717692522184943
Between the Rwanda bill and defense spending announcement I feel ever more certain that we are heading into a summer GE. Finally something Farage and I agree on.
Borrowing more than expected and lower tax receipts in March, yet promises of more spending.
Promises of more spending when they have a 3% chance of being in power......
Whereas, whilst they are in power backing away from the already watered down renters reform bill.
No Fault eviction is nothing of the sort. It is the end of a contract.
If the landlord does not want to renew why should they ?
Renters are not being "kicked out of their homes", they are at the end of a contract. Why should they be entitled to remain in a property after that.
because they are literally being "kicked out of their homes"?
They aren't.
It is not their home, they are renting it.
The contract has ended. So be it. Or should the renter be compelled to remain if they want to leave ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's definitely a place for people (mostly young, mostly mobile) who need a home on a timescale of months to a couple of years. And the current tenancy model serves that fairly well.
Trouble is that the same private rental sector is now having to provide people with homes where it's reasonable to want to stay for longer, and it does that very badly. A society where people who want to put down roots in a place but can't is a worse society.
Probably the answer is that there are nowhere near enough homes, so the landlord-tenant power balance is out of whack. Just build more homes where people want to live and all that.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Problem is NIMBYism is prevalent where they are needed and the solution is not barring so called no fault evictions.
The answer is to change where houses are needed by building new towns (or refurbishing old ones) and not further aggravating economic and social imbalances by concentrating development in and around an already over-heated London. What other modern state has all its economic eggs in its capital city's basket?
Surely it is both.
Levelling up is something I, as someone based in the North East, would love to see put into practise and it is something we need. But We should be bringing the rest of the country up to Londons level, not lowering London to the rest of the nation. Easier said than done.
But we do know how to build new towns, or at least we did between the wars, and after the war.
You are right. The restrictions put in place on urban sprawl by the post war planning system (green belt, T&CPA) were offset by government action to facilitate planned development in concentrated settlements in the form of new towns, making land available for private sector housebuilding supplemented by that by new town development corporations and local councils. Despite the green belt there was still plenty of land for housing development but just in specific planned locations to avoid random urban sprawl and ribbon development. Development of affordable housing was further encouraged by state subsidies for housebuilding by councils and new town development corporations.
So there were two sides to the state's involvement, one side restricting housing development and the other side promoting it. Now we just have the restrictions on steroids, while policies to promote housebuilding have disappeared. The change started to take effect from around the 1980s and has been manifest in a series of successive private house price booms, as supply dried up but demand didn't. Housing was still very affordable in London in the 1970s, the ring of new towns around the city took away a lot of the demand there and London's population was pretty static.
Until Thatcher stepped in there was, incidentally, also a major programme of real levelling up in the form of active regional policy, as opposed to the ficticious programme that is today non-existant other than in the form of government public relations.
You mean the "major programme of real levelling up" of "Oh no, Birmingham and Manchester are growing. Must Stop That!" ??
The evidence is that that the "active regional policies" were somewhere between demented and farcical.
Re renting. I have rented around 11 (I think) properties in my younger days as a student and then a Post Doc. One final rent as a lecturer before we bought our current home. All of the previous rents I would not have regarded as my 'home' in a significant way as they were always going to be short term (non more than a year or two). This fitted the flexibility of the lifestyle. However for many of the renting population of the country (is it really 25 million) I expect they feel very differently about their rented properties, and do indeed call them their homes. I mean if you've lived in a council flat for years on end, it is your home. How we balance short term provision (for those who need it and want it), long term rents and the rights of the owners of the rents is the key.
I've rented virtually all my life - I know nothing about boilers, insulation, and suchlike and prefer to live somewhere where an agent or a serious BTL landlord looks after anything like that. I've had nothing but good experiences. But the rental market is split between professionally-run places with high standards and relatively high prices (I've been paying £1200/month for a two-room annex to a house in Godalming) and places which are badly-run but cheap. The latter have pretty poor protection for tenants and that's where reform is needed.
The last July GE was in 1945, the 5th. I suppose possible then, the 4th, before the holiday season really gets going but 1945 not a good omen for the Tories!
Tories would probably take a 1945 outcome (197 seats) right now.
And LAB would get around 375 seats on that basis which Keir would be very pleased with 👍
One of my betting steers for football is to look at backing the draw when both teams would be very happy with that. Maybe it can be applied to this coming GE on Oct 24th. In which case what's in the sweet spot is probably Labour majority of 50 to 75.
(but I think it'll be bigger than that)
You are right in principle, Kin, but with FPTP it is so difficult to calibrate the size of the majority. As you know, the difference between a small majority and a landslide is just a few percentage points.
That is why I shot high with my prediction of 245 in Ben's Excellent Competition. I won't mention this too often if it turns out to be close.
I did 112 on that iirc. You and me were actually quite early on the Labour landslide bus, weren't we. Sadly no spread markets around to take advantage of. Too late for the big killing now - unless it is 245 of course.
I stick with my prediction of NOM majority or a small majority (can’t remember which - might even have gone small Tory majority to be different and account for black swans).
If I am proven wrong, I will be the fault of the voters failing to adequately study the precedents; not my own.
Of course if we joined Schengen the small boats would stop overnight. We’d still have people claiming asylum or living here illegally but they would just come on the train or ferry.
This is why there aren't small boats across the Irish Sea. The Irish justice minister claims at least 80% of asylum seekers (or International Protection Applicants, IPAs, in Irish politico-speak) enter Ireland via Northern Ireland.
Well it would be an understatement to say the Met came to the St George’s Day march with a very different, much more confrontational, attitude, compared to other recent marches in the city.
I think it was Tommy Robinson and his fascist mates who arrived with a much more confrontational attitude. They tried to break the agreed route, physically and aggressively.
Don't be too harsh on them, they are single handedly defending western civilisation from the barbarian hoard, armed only with an England shirt and a bottle of lager.
The goal being the elimination of Ukraine as a nation.
With the passage of US military aid for Kyiv imminent, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu says his army will step up attacks on Ukraine and won't let up until the goal of Moscow's brutal invasion is achieved: “We will increase the intensity of attacks on logistics centers and storage bases for Western weapons. The Russian Armed Forces will continue to carry out assigned tasks until the goals of the special operation are fully achieved,” Shoigu said. - RIA Novosti https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1782717692522184943
Love the idea that Russia has somehow been holding weapons back for this moment, as opposed to not having spent the last two years lobbing everything in the arsenal into Ukraine, just as quickly as the production lines and logistics lines could allow.
ATACMS, F16s, and Storm Shadow, are coming for you Putin. That’s a nice bridge you have there in Crimea, would be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
I always associate Frank Field with the phrase "think the unthinkable". RIP.
Didn't the last Labour government ask him to do that, and then sack him when he did ?
Thinking the unthinkable was okay but they didn't want him to talk about it.
And then there are his views on the welfare state, which place him firmly in a category all of his own, certainly within Labour. Put most simply, he believes it degrades the very people it is meant to serve, that it creates a benefit-dependent, work-shy sub-class. 'It's our fault as politicians to have put temptation in front of people,' he has said. 'If the system pays people more on incapacity benefit [than jobseekers' allowance], it's human nature to claim the higher amount. We have to remove the incentive.' In short, Frank Field wants to sack the nanny from the nanny state.
It was because of these maverick ideas that he was invited, when New Labour was elected in 1997, to serve under Harriet Harman at the Department of Social Security to plan reform of the benefits system. Or, at least, that was why he thought he had been asked to do the job. The green paper he produced was certainly radical: he wanted more people to take out private pensions rather than depend on the state. He wanted an attack on benefit fraud and tighter controls on incapacity benefit as a way of getting more people back to work. He wanted the right to payments from the state to be matched with responsibilities by those receiving the cash. He made it clear that he detested means-testing, regarding it as demeaning and wanted, instead, flat-rate benefits.
He was universally respected, but had little interest in engaging with colleagues - when preparing a proposal, he'd shut himself away doing research and drafting until he came up with a finished proposal. He often lunched alone, staring into space as he munched and thought. He'd have been great in a think tank, but politics doesn't work if you don't give people buy-in.
I always associate Frank Field with the phrase "think the unthinkable". RIP.
Didn't the last Labour government ask him to do that, and then sack him when he did ?
Thinking the unthinkable was okay but they didn't want him to talk about it.
And then there are his views on the welfare state, which place him firmly in a category all of his own, certainly within Labour. Put most simply, he believes it degrades the very people it is meant to serve, that it creates a benefit-dependent, work-shy sub-class. 'It's our fault as politicians to have put temptation in front of people,' he has said. 'If the system pays people more on incapacity benefit [than jobseekers' allowance], it's human nature to claim the higher amount. We have to remove the incentive.' In short, Frank Field wants to sack the nanny from the nanny state.
It was because of these maverick ideas that he was invited, when New Labour was elected in 1997, to serve under Harriet Harman at the Department of Social Security to plan reform of the benefits system. Or, at least, that was why he thought he had been asked to do the job. The green paper he produced was certainly radical: he wanted more people to take out private pensions rather than depend on the state. He wanted an attack on benefit fraud and tighter controls on incapacity benefit as a way of getting more people back to work. He wanted the right to payments from the state to be matched with responsibilities by those receiving the cash. He made it clear that he detested means-testing, regarding it as demeaning and wanted, instead, flat-rate benefits.
I hate the phrase "work shy", because it misses the point:
The tax and benefits system discourages a significant proportion of people from working. They are not "work shy", they are merely economically rational. Working simply does not pay.
Which, in turn, has meant the UK has sucked in immigrants to do the jobs we have economically discouraged Brits from doing.
Agreed about "work shy". A few decades ago the notions of poverty trap and unemployment trap were much more widely understood than they are now.
That was even if few on the left had the courage to observe that the rich love the poverty trap and detest the unemployment trap. There is nothing wrong with the poverty trap from the POV of the rich. The poverty trap is what they want. The unemployment trap is very different.
The right of course become all pious and insist how important it is to give the pram-faced council trash chavs a proper sense of purpose and some self-respect. Yeah right. Their hearts really bleed for this.
It's not just about economic rationality though. For most people, few things are. For a contemporary focus, see tang ping ("lie flat") and bai lan ("let it rot") in China.
Then on the side of the rich, see the 996 system. Will it be 996 or let it rot? The struggle continues.
Of course if we joined Schengen the small boats would stop overnight. We’d still have people claiming asylum or living here illegally but they would just come on the train or ferry.
I wonder what sorts of controls we would have retained if we had joined Schengen in the 90s. Presumably we would still have wanted frieght security controls to avoid lorries full of guns being driven into the country, for example.
Well it would be an understatement to say the Met came to the St George’s Day march with a very different, much more confrontational, attitude, compared to other recent marches in the city.
I think it was Tommy Robinson and his fascist mates who arrived with a much more confrontational attitude. They tried to break the agreed route, physically and aggressively.
Don't be too harsh on them, they are single handedly defending western civilisation from the barbarian hoard, armed only with an England shirt and a bottle of lager.
Glasgow Rangers shirts, actually, at least so it would seem from that linky TUD posted ...
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
She is not the heroine she tries to present herself as. Overpromoted, weak and from the evidence her main concern was her personal reputation not the wider interests of justice. Like many others she barely bothered to educate herself on the PO's prosecutorial functions and obligations.
The politics within the PO were poisonous and she was not very good at them so was outmanoeuvred. But had she been treated more gently by the Board I reckon she'd have continued and done what they wanted. Her explanations for what she actually wrote and her actions at the time were not really convincing.
Culture is a weird thing. We are all social animals at heart and it is unusual for someone to have the moral strength not to behave as those around them are doing. I am not sure in this case the question even crossed her mind.
Am I unusual then? I have not found this particularly hard though it is lonely and can be difficult. Though my job did put me in the privileged position of having to be the one asking difficult questions, which perhaps helped. But it is surely the essence of being a professional that you have to be able and willing to speak truth to power.
You are certainly right that organisations can easily develop a sort of ethical blindness so that people within it do not even realise that what they are doing is wrong. But that is why professionals like lawyers need to have that professional conscience.
It was telling that when counsel for the inquiry put the note to her in which Vennells wrote about Crichton putting her professional integrity above the interests of the firm, Crichton barely reacted or even agreed to it. It was almost as if she didn't realise that it was a compliment, even if Vennells didn't intend it as such.
And what the hell does that say about Vennells, a priest, that she thought having personal integrity was a criticism?! And the CoE wanted to make her a Bishop?!?
Sorry Cyclefree, I have to pick you up on one thing.
You believe this woman is genuinely Christian? Really?
Now where is that bridge I was looking to sell.....?
I called her a priest. Not a Christian. 😀
There's a subtle and important point there.
No one expects perfect behaviour from either a Priest or a Christian (except possibly the type of self-righteous oafish individual who expresses their personal anger by shouting things like "THAT'S NOT VERY CHRISTIAN !!!", when they normally mean "You did something I don't like.").
That is the very philosophical foundation of the faith, and as a basis I like it; it is a system of belief, aspiration and practice not a system of instructions or propositional logic. Individuals cannot be entirely judged as people on the basis of their behaviour or past behaviour. The Gospels are full of examples of that. There is only one judge of "who is a Christian".
Around that there are practicalities of humans running human organisations in this particular society, and how resilience, guard rails etc need to work. That is a different set of questions, requirements and practices.
On 'priesthood' or church leadership, at one end (eg Free Evangelical Churches) it is seen as a job like any other, for trained individuals. At the other (Roman Catholic) end aiui it is an ontological change for an individual, and is only reversed in extreme extremis - it might even formally require a referral to Rome. The Church of England, inevitably, has features of both.
For Paula Vennells, aiui she resigned her License (ie ' Bishop's permission to officiate') 3 years ago this week, and so can do no priestly duties. Since she was an unpaid office holder ('Non Stipendiary Minister'), I'm not sure what more can be done. In any case, I don't see anything further being done whilst the whole thing is still essentially sub-judice, since it would make no practical difference, and criminal charges are very possible.
One parallel case came up again this spring - Chris Brain former-leader of the Sheffield based "Nine O Clock Service" has been charged with various sexual offences dating back to 1983-1995, afaics after Me Too encouraged police complaints back in 2020 and there has been a 4-year police investigation.
Brain was permanently barred from officiating in the Church of England in 1995 by the Archbishop of York.
As an example of public confusion about the office of Priest, UK media are still calling him a "Priest" not a "former Priest".
Well it would be an understatement to say the Met came to the St George’s Day march with a very different, much more confrontational, attitude, compared to other recent marches in the city.
I think it was Tommy Robinson and his fascist mates who arrived with a much more confrontational attitude. They tried to break the agreed route, physically and aggressively.
Don't be too harsh on them, they are single handedly defending western civilisation from the barbarian hoard, armed only with an England shirt and a bottle of lager.
I love being English, its part of my identity (every bit as much as being Welsh is for a Welsh person, Sottish for a Scot etc). It annoys me when certain types sneer at the English identity while praising the Celtic versions.
And yet, watching clips of the idiots yesterday in London I can see why people feel the way they do, to some extent.
The goal being the elimination of Ukraine as a nation.
With the passage of US military aid for Kyiv imminent, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu says his army will step up attacks on Ukraine and won't let up until the goal of Moscow's brutal invasion is achieved: “We will increase the intensity of attacks on logistics centers and storage bases for Western weapons. The Russian Armed Forces will continue to carry out assigned tasks until the goals of the special operation are fully achieved,” Shoigu said. - RIA Novosti https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1782717692522184943
Love the idea that Russia has somehow been holding weapons back for this moment, as opposed to not having spent the last two years lobbing everything in the arsenal into Ukraine, just as quickly as the production lines and logistics lines could allow.
ATACMS, F16s, and Storm Shadow, are coming for you Putin. That’s a nice bridge you have there in Crimea, would be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.
Advocates within Germany of sending Taurus to Ukraine are using the ATACMs provision in the Bill to push Scholz again on providing Taurus. Fingers crossed.
The 2021 Census of England and Wales was one of the first in the world to ascertain the gender identity of an entire population. This article argues that its results are implausible with regard to geography, language, education, ethnicity, and religion. The results contradict data on referrals to gender clinics and signatures on a pro-transgender petition. The results are also internally inconsistent when the various categories of gender identity are correlated across localities, and when compared with sexual orientation. The spurious results were produced by a flawed question, which originated with a transgender campaigning organization. The question evidently confused a substantial number of respondents who erroneously declared their gender identity to differ from their natal sex. Confusion is manifested in the overrepresentation of people lacking English proficiency in the most suspect gender categories. These findings demonstrate how a faulty question can distort our apprehension of the social world.
Non-proficient English speakers five and a half times more likely to be trans - whodathunkit?
Give me a week or two: I think I can have a go at that one
To explain: Michael Biggs wrote the article in the Spectator casting doubt on the language-vs-question answers (why people with lower English skills were more likely to say they were trans). From memory the ONS and the Statistical Authority (or its successor bodies, I forget which) discussed this and eventually said it was OK, although the authority said more care should be taken in explaining how the numbers should be interpreted
They point the authority were trying to make (but didn't say out loud) is that at lower geographical units they can't cross-reference. Specifically, the uncertainty at low numbers and low geographies, plus disclosure avoidance, means that the errors are larger.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
only undertake to do work or provide a service that is within your professional competence;
NOT claim any level of competence that you do not possess;
develop your professional knowledge, skills and competence on a continuing basis, maintaining awareness of technological developments, procedures, and standards that are relevant to your field;
ensure that you have the knowledge and understanding of legislation and that you comply with such legislation, in carrying out your professional responsibilities;
respect and value alternative viewpoints and seek, accept and offer honest criticisms of work;
avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious or negligent action or inaction;
reject and will not make any offer of bribery or unethical inducement..
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
The problem is, that there really isn’t, and there should be. There’s various organisations such as BCS, PMP, CISM, but none are regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors etc.
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers.
Afaik despite the seriousness of the charges, the NI media aren’t herding outside the Donaldson family home and the PSNI did not erect a blue tent at same. They obviously do things differently over there.
Well there’s reporting restrictions in place on Donaldson case for starters.
What are they as a matter of interest, and why would they stop voyeuristic ogling of the Donaldson house?
Nothing that could lead to the identification of the alleged victims or relationship to the accused.
Amnesia is a terrible thing. Must be something in the water at the Post Office as so many of its senior employers have been affected.
BTW - FIRST !!!!
It isn't just amnesia, Taz. It's the entire way they present, which stands in stark contrast to the witnesses for the other side.
Bates and Arbuthnot, for examle, were clear, concise, and strightforward in their answers. They were also perfectly fair and reasonable. The PO representatives have been, almost to a man and woman, evasive, vague, unhelpful and preoccupied solely, it would appear, with saving their own sorry arses.
Yes but isn't this the problem with the inquiry? Rather than be a seeker of truth, it is looking for blame. And suppose the inquiry does find it is all Fred Smith's fault, what will we have learned to avoid similar scandals in future? Don't employ Fred Smith? Well, he's past retirement age anyway, so thanks for that. Don't make Ed Davey Prime Minister? Don't buy computer systems named after television programmes?
On the contrary there is a great deal to be learned - and much of the learning, especially for lawyers, both external and in-house - is already clear. It is to me anyway.
This is, IMO, as bad for the legal profession as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was for the City.
Don’t forget us IT professionals. We’re as embarrased as the legal profession, by this display of a total lack of upholding the ethical standards expected of us.
Maybe I mix in the wrong circles but I’ve not noticed a universal expectation of high ethical standards from IT professionals. If they manage not to instantly deny responsibility for an IT fck up or pin it on the hapless user, they’ve pretty much exceeded my expectations.
In fairness, is there such a thing as a code of IT professional ethics? I have no idea. But there most certainly is for lawyers, by statute and by professional self-regulation.
If there is it'll be based on the constitution of the United Federation of Planets or some such. When I started with an SME tech company I was slightly taken aback to learn that the head of IT had named the servers after Star Trek characters. Props to him for leaning into the stereotype though.
The 2021 Census of England and Wales was one of the first in the world to ascertain the gender identity of an entire population. This article argues that its results are implausible with regard to geography, language, education, ethnicity, and religion. The results contradict data on referrals to gender clinics and signatures on a pro-transgender petition. The results are also internally inconsistent when the various categories of gender identity are correlated across localities, and when compared with sexual orientation. The spurious results were produced by a flawed question, which originated with a transgender campaigning organization. The question evidently confused a substantial number of respondents who erroneously declared their gender identity to differ from their natal sex. Confusion is manifested in the overrepresentation of people lacking English proficiency in the most suspect gender categories. These findings demonstrate how a faulty question can distort our apprehension of the social world.
Non-proficient English speakers five and a half times more likely to be trans - whodathunkit?
Give me a week or two: I think I can have a go at that one
To explain: Michael Biggs wrote the article in the Spectator casting doubt on the language-vs-question answers (why people with lower English skills were more likely to say they were trans). From memory the ONS and the Statistical Authority (or its successor bodies, I forget which) discussed this and eventually said it was OK, although the authority said more care should be taken in explaining how the numbers should be interpreted
They point the authority were trying to make (but didn't say out loud) is that at lower geographical units they can't cross-reference. Specifically, the uncertainty at low numbers and low geographies, plus disclosure avoidance, means that the errors are larger.
[on a separate point I'd also check whether low-English-language skills were correlated with refugee status, since the refugee population would more likely to be trans than the indigenous population. But that speaks to interpretation of the phenomenon, not whether it exists]
Comments
That is why I shot high with my prediction of 245 in Ben's Excellent Competition. I won't mention this too often if it turns out to be close.
Their home page is a tad unfortunate -
What has destroyed the government have been lockdown parties, endless sleaze and Dizzy Lizzy pushing economic buttons like a five year old.
So when will the byelection be in Richmond, Yorkshire?
2026 or 2027?
So, as it comes up to the 10 year anniversary of renting a place, everyone packs up and leaves. Because only an insane landlord would let them stay 10 years and 1 day.
Trump wins PA GOP primary but notable that in a closed primary over 130k registered Republicans cast a vote for Nikki Haley:
https://twitter.com/meridithmcgraw/status/1782966469589970971
Is there anything to it or is it just the usual problem of too many overeducated/underexperienced applicants for certain types of jobs ?
Levelling up is something I, as someone based in the North East, would love to see put into practise and it is something we need. But We should be bringing the rest of the country up to Londons level, not lowering London to the rest of the nation. Easier said than done.
And the fundamental questions about computer systems, their auditing and evidential value?
What about the Establishment's willingness to look the other way? I can believe no-one in SW1 reads Computer Weekly but what about Private Eye's coverage going back years?
Actually, pensions are probably the third rail of many countries.
"How the police lost control of London
The Met is ill-suited to a divided society
Mary Harrington"
https://unherd.com/2024/04/how-the-police-lost-control-of-london/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u55QGCue7oU
AI summary to follow
And then there are his views on the welfare state, which place him firmly in a category all of his own, certainly within Labour. Put most simply, he believes it degrades the very people it is meant to serve, that it creates a benefit-dependent, work-shy sub-class. 'It's our fault as politicians to have put temptation in front of people,' he has said. 'If the system pays people more on incapacity benefit [than jobseekers' allowance], it's human nature to claim the higher amount. We have to remove the incentive.' In short, Frank Field wants to sack the nanny from the nanny state.
It was because of these maverick ideas that he was invited, when New Labour was elected in 1997, to serve under Harriet Harman at the Department of Social Security to plan reform of the benefits system. Or, at least, that was why he thought he had been asked to do the job. The green paper he produced was certainly radical: he wanted more people to take out private pensions rather than depend on the state. He wanted an attack on benefit fraud and tighter controls on incapacity benefit as a way of getting more people back to work. He wanted the right to payments from the state to be matched with responsibilities by those receiving the cash. He made it clear that he detested means-testing, regarding it as demeaning and wanted, instead, flat-rate benefits.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jul/02/publicservices.theobserver
Italy is a bit more British in this respect, albeit it's not the capital it's the Northern plain. And several of the smaller European countries: Greece in particular, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, all the Baltics.
The text discusses the aftermath of the Civil War in 1865, highlighting the devastation and economic ruin it caused. Despite the horrors of that war, modern polling suggests that many Americans believe a repeat of the Civil War is likely in the coming decade. However, experts believe that a massive war in the US is highly unlikely due to the country's stability and democratic institutions. While some indicators point to potential unrest, such as deep mistrust in institutions, the likelihood of a full-blown civil war is low.
The text also delves into the conditions that could potentially lead to a civil war, such as national polarization, weakened institutions, and the legitimization of violence. While some experts have raised concerns about the possibility of internal conflict in the US, the country's functioning democracy and lack of extreme factionalism make a large-scale civil war improbable. Additionally, the text explores the role of social media in exacerbating tensions and spreading misinformation, which could contribute to heightened conflict.
In terms of what a second Civil War in America might look like, experts suggest that it would likely be different from traditional wars, with a focus on insurgency rather than large-scale battles. The lack of clear geographic divides and the mixed political makeup of individual states make a full-blown civil war less likely. While history offers some models for potential conflict scenarios, experts emphasize that warning signs of insurgency may not be easily recognizable until it is too late. Overall, while the idea of a second Civil War in America is a topic of discussion, the likelihood of such a scenario remains low.
The PO approach was to make a teapot from lard and then blame the subcontractors making the tea for any tea losses, while also surreptitiously drilling holes in some teapots. Have I pushed that analogy too far?
ETA: Ah, maybe just Nestle boffins* per Malmesbury 's link
*if they count as such
"They asked him to think the unthinkable. So he did. And they said "That's unthinkable!""
I have no actual knowledge on this, but assuming it is a normal thickness for a teapot and it is left to brew I find that exceedingly unlikely. Chocolate melts at 37C* and the water in the teapot will be almost 100C and water's specific heat is quite large so it loses a lot of heat for each degree lost.
* I don't actually know that but I believe the magic of chocolate is that its melting point is that of the temperature of the human body.
We need to do an experiment.
They had a formula. One of the key factors was local wages. The higher the wages the greater the likelihood of local growth being supported.
The Treasury is still using it.
I’d suggest this is why we have more regional inequality than almost any other European country.
Britain boasts a low unemployment rate but this is disguised by all those who have effectively given up so are not counted.
As for AI, especially in America they use a system called ATS to screen CVs before they reach any humans. I'm not sure it goes much further than that in most places, although some will be exploring the cutting edge.
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1783013502057078845
The 2024 election in the United States is seen as a potential spark for an insurgency, with both right-wing and left-wing groups potentially resorting to violence.
Examples of such insurgencies are:
- 1. "Red Brigades". The growth of far-left groups, similar to Italy's Red Brigades, is a concern, as they may engage in kidnappings, robberies, and killings.
- 2. "Years of Lead". The "Years of Lead" in Italy, characterized by political violence, serve as a model for potential American insurgency.
- 3. "The Troubles". The Northern Irish Troubles, a low-intensity civil war, is also seen as a possible model for a future US civil war.
- 4. "La Violencia". The availability of guns in the US poses a unique challenge, as both insurgents and their opponents already have access to powerful weapons. The fear is that escalating attacks and retaliations could lead to widespread chaos and anarchy in the US. The example of the Colombian civil war, known as "La Violencia", is cited to illustrate the extreme violence that can occur when divisions escalate and ordinary people commit atrocities.
While the likelihood of a second American civil war is low, it is important to recognize the potential consequences of deep divisions and animosity within society.https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer
Field seems to have been one of those politicians who commanded respect from all sides.
RIP indeed.
But the argument that you can raise a tax without any negative impacts was very typical of Labour 1997-2010. It clearly did have an impact on this generation's ability to provide for its old age. If the government is taking some of what is being put into a pension fund, there will be less pension to pay out at the end. Arguing that there is no impact is madness.
Trump's NY trial not going well. As well as his lawyer "losing credibility with the court" in suggesting that Trump was trying ever so hard not to break the gag order, the testimony of Mr David Pecker (ex National Enquirer) solidly backed up the prosecutor's notion of a conspiracy, moving the actions of Trump up from misdemeanour to felony.
Cue more impotent rage from the ex-President.
There's little disparity of employment regionally:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/regionallabourmarket/april2024
and at constituency level the variations within London are huge:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8748/CBP-8748.pdf
PE did a great job on the scandal, but it is a bit hit and miss. Computer Weekly was brilliant and its warnings really should have been picked up by the PO.
The academics who designed the auction, to a spec provided by the government, pointed out that it didn't optimise for the public good. Just for the amount raised.
It ended up with Ed Balls trying to threaten that if a mobile company dropped out of the auction, the government would support a shareholder lawsuit. And with a fairly major die back in the roll out, investment cuts etc
https://x.com/emilyhewertson/status/1782818295227244756?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Pauline Vennels is typical of the management of the C of E, who’ve spent decades driving it into the ground, rather than the average decent vicar on the ground.
Large companies issuing dozen-page application forms for minimum-wage work, is a different problem, and must be totally demoralising for those at that end of the employment market.
(I can imagine Google or Microsoft using their actual primitive AI systems in recruitment, but they’re doing more laying-off than hiring at the moment).
I don't see you posting much these days.
Don't forget I owe you a lunch.
...
Londoners paid £59.3 billion to the Treasury in a single year and South-East residents £41.4 billion, just over half the total for the whole of England of £198 billion.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-income-tax-bill-stealth-freeze-chancellor-south-east-b1153485.html
There's your regional inequality and economic imbalance.
However for many of the renting population of the country (is it really 25 million) I expect they feel very differently about their rented properties, and do indeed call them their homes. I mean if you've lived in a council flat for years on end, it is your home.
How we balance short term provision (for those who need it and want it), long term rents and the rights of the owners of the rents is the key.
They tried to break the agreed route, physically and aggressively.
So there were two sides to the state's involvement, one side restricting housing development and the other side promoting it. Now we just have the restrictions on steroids, while policies to promote housebuilding have disappeared. The change started to take effect from around the 1980s and has been manifest in a series of successive private house price booms, as supply dried up but demand didn't. Housing was still very affordable in London in the 1970s, the ring of new towns around the city took away a lot of the demand there and London's population was pretty static.
Until Thatcher stepped in there was, incidentally, also a major programme of real levelling up in the form of active regional policy, as opposed to the ficticious programme that is today non-existant other than in the form of government public relations.
Maggie Haberman of the NYT was one of his more useful media channels; he's now turned on her, too.
Thousands of people were turned away from the Courthouse in Lower Manhattan by steel stanchions and police*, literally blocks from the tiny side door from where I enter and leave. It is an armed camp to keep people away. Maggot Hagerman of The Failing New York Times, falsely reported that I was disappointed with the crowds. No, I’m disappointed with Maggot, and her lack of writing skill...
https://twitter.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1782891637858820507
(*complete invention, of course)
The tax and benefits system discourages a significant proportion of people from working. They are not "work shy", they are merely economically rational. Working simply does not pay.
Which, in turn, has meant the UK has sucked in immigrants to do the jobs we have economically discouraged Brits from doing.
With the passage of US military aid for Kyiv imminent, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu says his army will step up attacks on Ukraine and won't let up until the goal of Moscow's brutal invasion is achieved: “We will increase the intensity of attacks on logistics centers and storage bases for Western weapons. The Russian Armed Forces will continue to carry out assigned tasks until the goals of the special operation are fully achieved,” Shoigu said. - RIA Novosti
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1782717692522184943
The evidence is that that the "active regional policies" were somewhere between demented and farcical.
If I am proven wrong, I will be the fault of the voters failing to adequately study the precedents; not my own.
One wonders why are there adverts on public-sector portals at all
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/24/ads_on_gov_uk_websites/
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2024/0423/1445065-cabinet-latest/
ATACMS, F16s, and Storm Shadow, are coming for you Putin. That’s a nice bridge you have there in Crimea, would be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.
Unverified users could scoop up data on high-value individuals without any form of verification process
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/23/neighbourhood_watch_privacy_bug/
WTF? Anyone could register themselves as a scheme coordinator, draw any boundary they liked, and then were given details of everyone inside.
That was even if few on the left had the courage to observe that the rich love the poverty trap and detest the unemployment trap. There is nothing wrong with the poverty trap from the POV of the rich. The poverty trap is what they want. The unemployment trap is very different.
The right of course become all pious and insist how important it is to give the pram-faced council trash chavs a proper sense of purpose and some self-respect. Yeah right. Their hearts really bleed for this.
It's not just about economic rationality though. For most people, few things are. For a contemporary focus, see tang ping ("lie flat") and bai lan ("let it rot") in China.
Then on the side of the rich, see the 996 system. Will it be 996 or let it rot? The struggle continues.
No one expects perfect behaviour from either a Priest or a Christian (except possibly the type of self-righteous oafish individual who expresses their personal anger by shouting things like "THAT'S NOT VERY CHRISTIAN !!!", when they normally mean "You did something I don't like.").
That is the very philosophical foundation of the faith, and as a basis I like it; it is a system of belief, aspiration and practice not a system of instructions or propositional logic. Individuals cannot be entirely judged as people on the basis of their behaviour or past behaviour. The Gospels are full of examples of that. There is only one judge of "who is a Christian".
Around that there are practicalities of humans running human organisations in this particular society, and how resilience, guard rails etc need to work. That is a different set of questions, requirements and practices.
On 'priesthood' or church leadership, at one end (eg Free Evangelical Churches) it is seen as a job like any other, for trained individuals. At the other (Roman Catholic) end aiui it is an ontological change for an individual, and is only reversed in extreme extremis - it might even formally require a referral to Rome. The Church of England, inevitably, has features of both.
For Paula Vennells, aiui she resigned her License (ie ' Bishop's permission to officiate') 3 years ago this week, and so can do no priestly duties. Since she was an unpaid office holder ('Non Stipendiary Minister'), I'm not sure what more can be done. In any case, I don't see anything further being done whilst the whole thing is still essentially sub-judice, since it would make no practical difference, and criminal charges are very possible.
One parallel case came up again this spring - Chris Brain former-leader of the Sheffield based "Nine O Clock Service" has been charged with various sexual offences dating back to 1983-1995, afaics after Me Too encouraged police complaints back in 2020 and there has been a 4-year police investigation.
Brain was permanently barred from officiating in the Church of England in 1995 by the Archbishop of York.
As an example of public confusion about the office of Priest, UK media are still calling him a "Priest" not a "former Priest".
And yet, watching clips of the idiots yesterday in London I can see why people feel the way they do, to some extent.
To explain: Michael Biggs wrote the article in the Spectator casting doubt on the language-vs-question answers (why people with lower English skills were more likely to say they were trans). From memory the ONS and the Statistical Authority (or its successor bodies, I forget which) discussed this and eventually said it was OK, although the authority said more care should be taken in explaining how the numbers should be interpreted
They point the authority were trying to make (but didn't say out loud) is that at lower geographical units they can't cross-reference. Specifically, the uncertainty at low numbers and low geographies, plus disclosure avoidance, means that the errors are larger.
https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/become-a-member/bcs-code-of-conduct/
This would be the relevant bit. (Don't laugh.)
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AND INTEGRITY
You shall:
only undertake to do work or provide a service that is within your professional competence;
NOT claim any level of competence that you do not possess;
develop your professional knowledge, skills and competence on a continuing basis, maintaining awareness of technological developments, procedures, and standards that are relevant to your field;
ensure that you have the knowledge and understanding of legislation and that you comply with such legislation, in carrying out your professional responsibilities;
respect and value alternative viewpoints and seek, accept and offer honest criticisms of work;
avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious or negligent action or inaction;
reject and will not make any offer of bribery or unethical inducement..
I want to see the senior PO IT and Fujitsu people struck off a professional register, such that they have no chance of a white-collar IT job, and are destined to spend the rest of their days either working in PC World selling extended warranties, working on the helpdesk logging tickets - or, horror of horrors, fixing printers.