Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Polling errors – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited June 8 in General
Polling errors – politicalbetting.com

There’s three times more people who voted Conservative and are undecided than voted Labour and are undecided, and where these voters end up going will make a big difference. https://t.co/JkCGGkRhcp

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    Greetings from Hamburg
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,309
    Mr. Brooke, I hope you're enjoying the local delicacy.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476
    Polls got it wrong.. shurely shome mishtake.........
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @DPJHodges

    Two very different election strategies already developing. Tories with a flurry of major announcements to seize the agenda. Labour sitting back, saying very little, leaving them to it. Tories glad they’re making the running. Labour glad they’re making the running as well.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    Mr. Brooke, I hope you're enjoying the local delicacy.

    Ive tried Labskaus a while back. Sort of average.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,811
    Interesting
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    Though when we look at Opinium, who allocate DKs on previous vote it is still a Labour landslide.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,758
    @SouthamObserver - what benefits do kids who don’t go to university get?

    I’m with @JosiasJessop - for me, the principle of forced Labour is wrong irrespective of anything else. If Tories want to bring back national service, the. They should do it and explain how they’ll pay for it. This policy is simply wrong and I think any other country that has a similar scheme is wrong irrespective of EU membership or free university tuition.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    I note @Big_G_NorthWales immediately blamed it on the unions. Not sure the last time he went on a train but all of us rail users know that whilst the unions aren’t helping matters, the problems are far more systemic than that. Our railways are a shambles at the moment.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    eek said:

    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from

    These are the two great unknowns for me, and represent the extent of (a) motivation to remove the Tories and thus vote tactically accordingly, and (b) the lack of motivation to vote among traditional Tories.

    Essentially two poles of (relative, remember most people don’t think about politics much) electoral sophistication and of apathy.

    At the moment I would imagine something like Natty Servs would increase the former and *perhaps* decrease the latter. So not really a tactical masterstroke (and fairly obviously terrible policymaking).
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,372
    edited May 28
    My gut feel is the percentage share will be closer than the polls indicate, perhaps for the reason Lord Hayward suggests. But the Labour vote will also be more efficient than people expect, ie Labour can win a majority on a smaller vote share. We saw that in the Council elections. And the two effects will broadly cancel each other out to give Labour a large majority.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Greetings Alan
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,701
    This is my problem with polling these days. The raw figures are only about 25% of the published poll. The rest is black box stuff.

    I almost prefer the American convention of omitting the dk’s and nv’s.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    edited May 28
    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    No I will be heading for the Kunsthalle. They have a collection of Caspar David Friedrich who I enjoy. In June it will be Blake.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681
    FPT

    eek said:

    » show previous quotes
    +1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence

    But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.

    Feck's sake , they don't know how to press a few buttons and turn a wheel , pampered arses right enough. Imagine lorry drivers saying "Sorry Boss I don't know that road". Useless overpaid lazy twats.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Greetings from Hamburg

    A lovely city. Red squirrels everywhere in the botanic gardens and very moving and even handed memorial to the bombing victims in the basement of the St Nikolai Kirche.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Sounds worth a visit - though this raised a smile.

    ...In the summer of 2000, Frederik Braun, one of the two founders of Miniatur Wunderland, was on vacation in Zurich. In a local model train store he came up with the idea for the world's largest model railway. Back in Hamburg, he searched for email addresses online and started a survey on the popularity of real and fictional sights of the city. In the process, the Miniatur Wunderland, which did not yet exist, was ranked 3 by male respondents...
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617
    Foxy said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    A lovely city. Red squirrels everywhere in the botanic gardens and very moving and even handed memorial to the bombing victims in the basement of the St Nikolai Kirche.
    I'm working atm in the harbour. Down by the dockside but cant see any of @TSE lady friends.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    » show previous quotes
    +1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence

    But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.

    Feck's sake , they don't know how to press a few buttons and turn a wheel , pampered arses right enough. Imagine lorry drivers saying "Sorry Boss I don't know that road". Useless overpaid lazy twats.

    Says someone who doesn’t know how to drive a train, when your braking distance is 1 to 2 miles you need to know what’s coming up well in advance because the next issue is well beyond the horizon
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    Thank for your insight but it doesn't change the argument the railways are broken and ASLEF are still in dispute and will Starmer concede their demands
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    edited May 28
    In support of the mega tsunami leads - some/many of the parliamentary by elections, the twitter echo chamber, some mayoralties

    Against the mega tsunami and more 'opiniumish' downwards - local by elections, the '23 and '24 LEs, the PCCs, London elections, midlands and teeside mayoralties, Hayward isnt some n00b

    DYOR

    Morning all
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    And that's symptomatic of a wider issue.

    We've gone well past the point of unions holding the public sector to ransom. It's that individual workers are voting with their feet and deciding that they would rather do other things with their time and skills.

    I don't know how anyone fixes that, what with there being even less money than the time that there was no money. But foot stamping and saying that people should jolly well take what's on offer doesn't work.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,681
    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    » show previous quotes
    +1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence

    But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.

    Feck's sake , they don't know how to press a few buttons and turn a wheel , pampered arses right enough. Imagine lorry drivers saying "Sorry Boss I don't know that road". Useless overpaid lazy twats.

    Says someone who doesn’t know how to drive a train, when your braking distance is 1 to 2 miles you need to know what’s coming up well in advance because the next issue is well beyond the horizon
    Take me 10 minutes to get up to speed
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    And that's symptomatic of a wider issue.

    We've gone well past the point of unions holding the public sector to ransom. It's that individual workers are voting with their feet and deciding that they would rather do other things with their time and skills.

    I don't know how anyone fixes that, what with there being even less money than the time that there was no money. But foot stamping and saying that people should jolly well take what's on offer doesn't work.
    Overtime is a personal choice some will grab every penny going others simply won’t no matter how much is being offered.

    The fix is always to reduce the need for overtime
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    Heathener said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    I note @Big_G_NorthWales immediately blamed it on the unions. Not sure the last time he went on a train but all of us rail users know that whilst the unions aren’t helping matters, the problems are far more systemic than that. Our railways are a shambles at the moment.
    I regularly travelled to London when on business and it was an excellent reliable service

    ASLEF have been holding the railways to ransom and the question is will Starmer concede their wage demsnds

    I would also comment that when they arrived 10 days ago the Euston Holyhead train was delayed by over 45 minutes in Chester due to lack of crew
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 586
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Rehashing a point from PT, jury duty is compulsory labour but we are happy with it because someone has to do it and nobody much wants to. The same is potentially true of military service (but not Sunak's other stuff). So frame this as necessary conscription with the other stuff just as a footnote to stop shirking and I am happy with it. The problem is putting the two options on an equal footing

    https://www.forces.net/world/which-countries-still-have-conscription

    No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:

    "Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.

    After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'

    In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too

    Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,372
    Scott_xP said:

    @DPJHodges

    Two very different election strategies already developing. Tories with a flurry of major announcements to seize the agenda. Labour sitting back, saying very little, leaving them to it. Tories glad they’re making the running. Labour glad they’re making the running as well.

    Not sure "Those proposals are complete nonsense but it doesn't matter because they have no hope of staying in power" is the killer talking point the Tories think it is.
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 586
    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    » show previous quotes
    +1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence

    But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.

    Feck's sake , they don't know how to press a few buttons and turn a wheel , pampered arses right enough. Imagine lorry drivers saying "Sorry Boss I don't know that road". Useless overpaid lazy twats.

    Says someone who doesn’t know how to drive a train, when your braking distance is 1 to 2 miles you need to know what’s coming up well in advance because the next issue is well beyond the horizon
    Take me 10 minutes to get up to speed
    Getting down to speed is the issue
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,171
    megasaur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Rehashing a point from PT, jury duty is compulsory labour but we are happy with it because someone has to do it and nobody much wants to. The same is potentially true of military service (but not Sunak's other stuff). So frame this as necessary conscription with the other stuff just as a footnote to stop shirking and I am happy with it. The problem is putting the two options on an equal footing

    https://www.forces.net/world/which-countries-still-have-conscription

    No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:

    "Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.

    After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'

    In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too

    Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
    There are many exceptions available to jury service. And you effectively get paid.

    Military conscription or alternative service in various European countries: you get paid.

    The Tories’ national service: apart from the military route, everyone else doesn’t get paid.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677
    eek said:

    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from

    You'd have to ask Robert Hayward that, and I'm confident that his answer would be worth listening to. And "what about the Don't Knows?" is the standard question to ask to make a boring election interesting.

    But let's remember that 200 seats is a very bad defeat. Fewer than Foot got in 1983, roughly on a par with Howard in 2005 or Corbyn in 2019.

    Now it's possible to recover from that in a term. But you need a lot to go your way. In 2005-10, we had the GFC, the rise of Brown and Cameron and ended up with a hung parliament. In 2019-24, we have had... all of this.

    And that seems like the best case scenario for the Conservatives. Though I still want to see where on the swingometer Rishi's battlechopper is landing.
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 586
    FF43 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @DPJHodges

    Two very different election strategies already developing. Tories with a flurry of major announcements to seize the agenda. Labour sitting back, saying very little, leaving them to it. Tories glad they’re making the running. Labour glad they’re making the running as well.

    Not sure "Those proposals are complete nonsense but it doesn't matter because they have no hope of staying in power" is the killer talking point the Tories think it is.
    "But I was thinking of a plan to dye my whiskers green
    And always use so large a fan that they could not be seen."

    Lewis Carroll
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    My main worry is the polling sample. There's no way in which it can truly be said to be random, because the non-response rate is so high that they're effectively self-selecting.

    The hope, then, is that the people choosing to participate ate still representative of everyone else in the same demographic groups. The old people are representative of the old, and the young people of the young, etc.

    I think a failure of this hope might help to explain the high opinion polling for Greens and Reform, in the event that these parties both fail to match their polling. Rather than these voters being squeezed during the election campaign, they may simply have been over represented by their supporters greater willingness to respond to opinion polls.

    Would Conservative to Labour switchers be over represented in a similar way? I think that the evidence from some of the huge by-election swings is that the answer to this is no.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited May 28
    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Do you mean the world’s biggest model railway? I went there last year. Well worth it, although it’s crowded, and realistically you have to book in advance.

    I’ll even waste todays photo on it:


  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    edited May 28
    megasaur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Rehashing a point from PT, jury duty is compulsory labour but we are happy with it because someone has to do it and nobody much wants to. The same is potentially true of military service (but not Sunak's other stuff). So frame this as necessary conscription with the other stuff just as a footnote to stop shirking and I am happy with it. The problem is putting the two options on an equal footing

    https://www.forces.net/world/which-countries-still-have-conscription

    No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:

    "Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.

    After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'

    In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too

    Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
    Military service might be accepted if a case were made for its necessity - though it would also require cross party consensus.

    It's very far from obvious that there's any military case for the UK introducing peacetime conscription, and certainly not with the current level of military capacity to deal with it.

    The idea that Rishi's post it note, zero consultation election policy makes any kind of sense at all, is for hard core Tory loyalists and elderly nostalgics only.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    Heathener said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    I note @Big_G_NorthWales immediately blamed it on the unions. Not sure the last time he went on a train but all of us rail users know that whilst the unions aren’t helping matters, the problems are far more systemic than that. Our railways are a shambles at the moment.
    I regularly travelled to London when on business and it was an excellent reliable service

    ASLEF have been holding the railways to ransom and the question is will Starmer concede their wage demsnds

    I would also comment that when they arrived 10 days ago the Euston Holyhead train was delayed by over 45 minutes in Chester due to lack of crew
    Could have been worse.

    Could have been 45 minutes at Stoke.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,429
    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    » show previous quotes
    +1 would need to speak to my mate who lives there but I believe that train not working is a regular occurrence

    But it’s a staff issue - very few drivers know the route and the train (both of which is required) so it’s possible that a combination of school holidays and someone being ill can knock the early morning train off.

    Feck's sake , they don't know how to press a few buttons and turn a wheel , pampered arses right enough. Imagine lorry drivers saying "Sorry Boss I don't know that road". Useless overpaid lazy twats.

    Says someone who doesn’t know how to drive a train, when your braking distance is 1 to 2 miles you need to know what’s coming up well in advance because the next issue is well beyond the horizon
    And the modern systems of training & certification are part of what has made U.K. trains very, very safe.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,489
    edited May 28

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Well I hope you behave yourself! Not too many trips down the Reeperbahn. I used to work regularly for a company on Heimhuder Strasse and stay at a boutique hotel called The Garden. One of my favourite Cities.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,331
    Nigelb said:

    megasaur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Rehashing a point from PT, jury duty is compulsory labour but we are happy with it because someone has to do it and nobody much wants to. The same is potentially true of military service (but not Sunak's other stuff). So frame this as necessary conscription with the other stuff just as a footnote to stop shirking and I am happy with it. The problem is putting the two options on an equal footing

    https://www.forces.net/world/which-countries-still-have-conscription

    No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:

    "Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.

    After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'

    In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too

    Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
    Military service might be accepted if a case were made for its necessity - though it would also require cross party consensus.

    It's very far from obvious that there's any military case for the UK introducing peacetime conscription, and certainly not with the current level of military capacity to deal with it.

    The idea that Rishi's post it note, zero consultation election policy makes any kind of sense at all is for hard core Tory loyalists and elderly nostalgics only.
    When I was at QMW in London in the early 1990s, I knew a few Portuguese men who were permanent students in order to avoid military service. ISTR that once they reached 25 they could no longer be conscripted (*), so they were doing masters and doctorates abroad until they reached that age.

    Of course, they were all 'rich' enough to live the lives of eternal students.

    (*) That may be wrong; memory and all that...
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 586

    megasaur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Rehashing a point from PT, jury duty is compulsory labour but we are happy with it because someone has to do it and nobody much wants to. The same is potentially true of military service (but not Sunak's other stuff). So frame this as necessary conscription with the other stuff just as a footnote to stop shirking and I am happy with it. The problem is putting the two options on an equal footing

    https://www.forces.net/world/which-countries-still-have-conscription

    No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:

    "Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.

    After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'

    In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too

    Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
    There are many exceptions available to jury service. And you effectively get paid.

    Military conscription or alternative service in various European countries: you get paid.

    The Tories’ national service: apart from the military route, everyone else doesn’t get paid.
    Fewer than you would think. Being a solicitor used to get you off. Now it doesn't.

    You don't get paid for jury service you get £65 a day for not getting paid which ok comes to the same thing (but not very much of the same thing). But I was addressing the compulsory rather than the unpaid aspect.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Do you mean the world’s biggest model railway? I went there last year. Well worth it, although it’s crowded, and realistically you have to book in advance.

    I’ll even waste todays photo on it:


    Even bigger than the pop music gentleman's model of the WCML?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,403
    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Sounds worth a visit - though this raised a smile.

    ...In the summer of 2000, Frederik Braun, one of the two founders of Miniatur Wunderland, was on vacation in Zurich. In a local model train store he came up with the idea for the world's largest model railway. Back in Hamburg, he searched for email addresses online and started a survey on the popularity of real and fictional sights of the city. In the process, the Miniatur Wunderland, which did not yet exist, was
    ranked 3 by male respondents.
    ..
    Boots nurses were once voted as the UK’s most trusted healthcare professionals

    Except they don’t exist…
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,429
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    And that's symptomatic of a wider issue.

    We've gone well past the point of unions holding the public sector to ransom. It's that individual workers are voting with their feet and deciding that they would rather do other things with their time and skills.

    I don't know how anyone fixes that, what with there being even less money than the time that there was no money. But foot stamping and saying that people should jolly well take what's on offer doesn't work.
    Overtime is a personal choice some will grab every penny going others simply won’t no matter how much is being offered.

    The fix is always to reduce the need for overtime
    I’ve been trying to find the number for the cost of the use of agency staff etc on the NHS vs having enough staff. I would suspect that it is a serious number of billions.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    edited May 28

    Heathener said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    I note @Big_G_NorthWales immediately blamed it on the unions. Not sure the last time he went on a train but all of us rail users know that whilst the unions aren’t helping matters, the problems are far more systemic than that. Our railways are a shambles at the moment.
    I regularly travelled to London when on business and it was an excellent reliable service

    ASLEF have been holding the railways to ransom and the question is will Starmer concede their wage demsnds

    I would also comment that when they arrived 10 days ago the Euston Holyhead train was delayed by over 45 minutes in Chester due to lack of crew
    My experience with a lot of unions is that ASLEF have likely been warning management for ages that they are short-staffed, and cannot rely on workers goodwill to fill rosters at short notice to fill in the gaps, but that management have refused (or in this case are forbidden by the DfT) to recruit sufficiently to make up the difference.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,171
    megasaur said:

    megasaur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Rehashing a point from PT, jury duty is compulsory labour but we are happy with it because someone has to do it and nobody much wants to. The same is potentially true of military service (but not Sunak's other stuff). So frame this as necessary conscription with the other stuff just as a footnote to stop shirking and I am happy with it. The problem is putting the two options on an equal footing

    https://www.forces.net/world/which-countries-still-have-conscription

    No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:

    "Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.

    After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'

    In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too

    Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
    There are many exceptions available to jury service. And you effectively get paid.

    Military conscription or alternative service in various European countries: you get paid.

    The Tories’ national service: apart from the military route, everyone else doesn’t get paid.
    Fewer than you would think. Being a solicitor used to get you off. Now it doesn't.

    You don't get paid for jury service you get £65 a day for not getting paid which ok comes to the same thing (but not very much of the same thing). But I was addressing the compulsory rather than the unpaid aspect.
    I was addressing the unpaid aspect.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    No I will be heading for the Kunsthalle. They have a collection of Caspar David Friedrich who I enjoy. In June it will be Blake.
    Enjoy - I’m an enormous fan of Caspar David Friedrich; romanticism in general really but he has that indefinable greatness that elevates.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033

    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Sounds worth a visit - though this raised a smile.

    ...In the summer of 2000, Frederik Braun, one of the two founders of Miniatur Wunderland, was on vacation in Zurich. In a local model train store he came up with the idea for the world's largest model railway. Back in Hamburg, he searched for email addresses online and started a survey on the popularity of real and fictional sights of the city. In the process, the Miniatur Wunderland, which did not yet exist, was
    ranked 3 by male respondents.
    ..
    Boots nurses were once voted as the UK’s most trusted healthcare professionals

    Except they don’t exist…
    https://www.boots.jobs/pharmacy/healthcare-support/
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @alexwickham

    Exclusive:

    — Leaked internal Conservative Party polling reveals more than 100 Tory MPs could lose their seats solely due to the rise of Reform

    — Documents seen by @BloombergUK show senior aides fear huge losses caused by Reform splitting Tory vote

    https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1795349195442069817
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546
    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    I think that belief is based upon the historical record. Many people, like me, get pissed off with a government that insists on wasting money and time on absurd projects whilst failing to address the too hard stuff. They become disillusioned and say "don't know". But history tells us that a substantial number end up supporting the party they usually support when it comes to it, particularly if the alternative is uninspired.

    The "don't knows" are currently pretty high. 3x as many voted Tory as Labour in the past. It is reasonable to surmise that a proportion of them will vote and that the majority of them will vote for their previous party. To put numbers on this if something like 20% are currently "don't know" then maybe 70% of that group who have voted before (those who don't normally vote are different and all too likely not to vote again) will vote. Given their make up they may break something like 10% Tory and 4% Labour.

    It sounds plausible to me. It doesn't stop a comfortable Labour victory but it does stop a massacre. Of course, this time it could be different.

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,639

    Heathener said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    I note @Big_G_NorthWales immediately blamed it on the unions. Not sure the last time he went on a train but all of us rail users know that whilst the unions aren’t helping matters, the problems are far more systemic than that. Our railways are a shambles at the moment.
    I regularly travelled to London when on business and it was an excellent reliable service

    ASLEF have been holding the railways to ransom and the question is will Starmer concede their wage demsnds

    I would also comment that when they arrived 10 days ago the Euston Holyhead train was delayed by over 45 minutes in Chester due to lack of crew
    Clearly the unions to blame for the train operator not employing enough drivers or guards.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,331
    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Do you mean the world’s biggest model railway? I went there last year. Well worth it, although it’s crowded, and realistically you have to book in advance.

    I’ll even waste todays photo on it:


    Even bigger than the pop music gentleman's model of the WCML?
    Waterman's layout is something like: "the world's largest portable layout," in that it could (and I believe was) set up in two different places within a certain period.

    I must admit that if I was building a massive model railway, I wouldn't make it of the WCML at Milton Keynes, or in the modern era! Then again, those choices probably made building it easier.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    I would characterise it as National Service.

    Do you think Jury Duty is forced labour?
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    @KevinASchofield

    Mel Stride out and about this morning to promote the Tories expanding the pension triple lock.

    Which is quite funny, given he said it was "unsustainable" last year.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    edited May 28
    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    There is a bizarre variation in reasoned accounts that can be given of Tory seats in July. The case can be properly made for about 35, and the case (which I prefer factually but not politically) can be made for up to about 290.

    The biggest difference in about ex-Tory DKs and ex-Tory Reform preferences. Together they are 38% approx of 2019 Tory voters. That is 5 million voters. The gap between Con and Lab in 2019 was 3.5 million voters.

    If about a third of this group vote Tory in July, the Tories will do OK, though hopefully not win.

    I still think NoM is very likely.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Nigelb said:

    megasaur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Rehashing a point from PT, jury duty is compulsory labour but we are happy with it because someone has to do it and nobody much wants to. The same is potentially true of military service (but not Sunak's other stuff). So frame this as necessary conscription with the other stuff just as a footnote to stop shirking and I am happy with it. The problem is putting the two options on an equal footing

    https://www.forces.net/world/which-countries-still-have-conscription

    No idea of the reliability of the source. I like the Dutch approach:

    "Officially, the Netherlands has mandatory military service, however, it is not enforced.

    After turning 17, a conscript receives a letter from the Ministry of Defence stating they are registered for military service. But, there is no obligation to show up.'

    In Austria and Switzerland the basic obligation is military service, with alternatives only permitted to conscientious objectors. That makes more sense to me - we are (I assume) comfortable with the thought of conscription in time of war, and if it is necessary for national security we should be in peacetime too

    Incidentally we already routinely force adult citizens into the most onerous, distressing and traumatizing labour imaginable called jury service. Another case where it's a horrible job but someone has to do it.
    Military service might be accepted if a case were made for its necessity - though it would also require cross party consensus.

    It's very far from obvious that there's any military case for the UK introducing peacetime conscription, and certainly not with the current level of military capacity to deal with it.

    The idea that Rishi's post it note, zero consultation election policy makes any kind of sense at all is for hard core Tory loyalists and elderly nostalgics only.
    When I was at QMW in London in the early 1990s, I knew a few Portuguese men who were permanent students in order to avoid military service. ISTR that once they reached 25 they could no longer be conscripted (*), so they were doing masters and doctorates abroad until they reached that age.

    Of course, they were all 'rich' enough to live the lives of eternal students.

    (*) That may be wrong; memory and all that...
    The South Korean system has conscription at 18 - but you can choose a time up until you're 28 to serve.
    The penalties for (and social stigma around) avoiding conscription are considerable.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Do you mean the world’s biggest model railway? I went there last year. Well worth it, although it’s crowded, and realistically you have to book in advance.

    I’ll even waste todays photo on it:


    Even bigger than the pop music gentleman's model of the WCML?
    Waterman's layout is something like: "the world's largest portable layout," in that it could (and I believe was) set up in two different places within a certain period.

    I must admit that if I was building a massive model railway, I wouldn't make it of the WCML at Milton Keynes, or in the modern era! Then again, those choices probably made building it easier.
    No indeed - given the resources of time and money available to him for this I’d do something quite different - z scale 1970s Sapporo - Hakodate or something equally daft, or something wilfully abstract and wrong.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 58,106

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

    Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    And that's symptomatic of a wider issue.

    We've gone well past the point of unions holding the public sector to ransom. It's that individual workers are voting with their feet and deciding that they would rather do other things with their time and skills.

    I don't know how anyone fixes that, what with there being even less money than the time that there was no money. But foot stamping and saying that people should jolly well take what's on offer doesn't work.
    Overtime is a personal choice some will grab every penny going others simply won’t no matter how much is being offered.

    The fix is always to reduce the need for overtime
    I’ve been trying to find the number for the cost of the use of agency staff etc on the NHS vs having enough staff. I would suspect that it is a serious number of billions.
    Oh it is - but you have to be careful with the NHS as training a train driver is rather quicker than a medical consultant.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    eek said:

    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from

    Further counter argument - a lot of the Tory 2019 vote was either 'get Brexit done', anti-Corbyn, or 'give Boris a go'. None of these factors apply now.

    Having said that, I do wake up in a cold sweat that somehow the Tories pull this off. If they do - I'm giving up, sod it, th country will deserve all it gets.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,639
    Before the election: "30% don't know."

    After the election: "30% don't vote."

    For many people, saying that they don't know is a polite way of saying that they can’t be arsed.

    They'll be breaking for the sofa, not the Tories.
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 586
    Farooq said:

    I wouldn't call it forced labour. Forced labour usually doesn't involve punishing your relatives too. This is something worse.

    It's Head Boy syndrome

    Countries: Military service (with alternatives bolted on as an afterthought) for paid adults

    Sunak's school: CCF and alternatives on an equal footing, unpaid minors and you have a stern word with the parents if the minors refuse to cooperate.

    He is a Peter Pan figure. Headboydom went to his head and he is reliving it
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

    Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
    The interesting argument here is it is the Guardian not any conservative supporting paper

    I think this may well be Starmer's first problem
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    WillG said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The thinktank that came up with the Lads Army says Richi's scheme won't work

    @Simon_Nixon

    Replying to @DanielKorski @RishiSunak and 2 others

    The @ukonward report you have linked to advocates what amounts to a voluntary mass Duke of Edinburgh award, nothing like the mandatory nonsense being proposed by Sunak. In fact @ukonward spells out quite clearly why Sunak’s scheme won’t work!

    https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1795147944594690299

    The problem with it is definitely the mandatory bit - which is why it's such madness clearly cooked up so they can tell elderly reactionaries they're bringing back 'National Service'.

    Plus, the army bit is obviously not wanted by the army itself, as they don't want to babysit 30,000 18-year-olds over proper recruitment and kitting out.

    A mass boost to youth volunteering - pretty popular, even among the young. So long as it's optional.

    Once you make it mandatory you create huge questions of sanctions, policing, safeguarding, training, and funding. None of which exist if you're launching a scheme designed to give people an incentive to volunteer rather than telling 18-year-olds what to do with their weekends. When many will already be working very hard to either pay for their education, care for families etc. Or already doing something valuable with their free time.

    Sublimely out-of-touch with ordinary young people's lives today.
    School is mandatory. Why is it such a problem that another part of young people's education is mandatory? This isn't out of touchness. This is the pathetic British mindset of being against all change, especially change that demands more responsibility for people.
    Education is mandatory for children until 18, yes.

    What is proposed is mandatory for adults so not a part of their education. And ignores the fact that many such adults have other responsibilities already at weekends, like jobs for example.

    If you want to adjust the mandatory education system then that's reasonable - for children under 18 and in hours that are reasonably for education, not for adults in hours they might have a job.
    One of the maddening things is that there are the germs of a couple of maybe decent (but not cheap) ideas here.

    One is a widely-available, competitive but easy application process Public Service Internship, a year between school/college and university/employment/apprenticeship. No reason why it just has to be military.

    The other is making helping out in the community a natural part of the compulsory education experience. Duke of Edinburgh, NCS, International Baccalaureate... they've all got it. Schools and colleges just need a smallish amount of cash and a larger amount of staff time, and Rishi claimed to be hoping to reform post-16 education anyway. It would have fitted in there pretty well without too much need to reinvent the wheel. (Couple of conditions I would put on this- it should fit within the school/college timetable and the main reward participants should get is the learning, and the projects should be nice-to-haves, not core functions of government. That's where the Sunak Grand Design stuffed up.)

    But it's all got lost due to Rishi's unwillingness to spend money (given a chance, he would have axed NCS altogether) and the Conservative obsession with fluffing boomers with phrases like National Service. And that looks like it's discredited the whole thing.
    There's been nothing to stop Labour formulating a more realistic proposal.

    In 1945, 1964, 1997 Labour came to power with ideas on how to modernise and reform the country.

    Whereas now Labour offer nothing but being a repository of votes for getting rid of the Conservatives and SNP.
    Not inflicting forced labour on 18 year-olds seems a pretty realistic alternative to me.

    You modernise and reform what is actually happening.

    Not some hypothetical future which isn't going to happen.

    Vote Labour - For no change apart from which politicians gets their snouts in the trough.

    Forced labour for 18 year-olds is not currently happening. It will happen if the Tories are returned to power. So saying you won’t do it is a very realistic alternative.

    Utterly absurd misrepresentation.
    How would you represent it ?
    It's not "forced labour" and it's absurd to suggest it is, anymore than compulsory education to the age of 18 is "forced labour".
    This isn't education.
    And it's subject to compulsion.

    I asked how you would characterise it; I already know you don't like my honest appraisal.
    I would characterise it as National Service.

    Do you think Jury Duty is forced labour?
    National Service is forced labour.
    And in this case, it's an utterly futile scheme.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    edited May 28

    eek said:

    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from

    Further counter argument - a lot of the Tory 2019 vote was either 'get Brexit done', anti-Corbyn, or 'give Boris a go'. None of these factors apply now.

    Having said that, I do wake up in a cold sweat that somehow the Tories pull this off. If they do - I'm giving up, sod it, th country will deserve all it gets.
    It’s why I don’t think those don’t knows break for the Tory party the way they would do in prior elections. 2019’was get Brexit done, it’s now been implemented and no one likes the end result..

    Which is why I went for Tories less than 50 seats. It’s not likely to happen but it’s more likely than the 4% chance the odds suggested.,
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 952

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    There are fewer and fewer children each year right now. Down 17% in England and Wales from 2012 to 2022. And that trend is set to continue.

    Given the small percentage of the population in private schools, even with a fall in private school numbers, existing state schools should easily be able to absorb the slack. So no increase in cost from the current position, and an increase in tax revenue.

    Demographics on Labour's side here.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210

    Heathener said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    I note @Big_G_NorthWales immediately blamed it on the unions. Not sure the last time he went on a train but all of us rail users know that whilst the unions aren’t helping matters, the problems are far more systemic than that. Our railways are a shambles at the moment.
    I regularly travelled to London when on business and it was an excellent reliable service

    ASLEF have been holding the railways to ransom and the question is will Starmer concede their wage demsnds

    I would also comment that when they arrived 10 days ago the Euston Holyhead train was delayed by over 45 minutes in Chester due to lack of crew
    Presumably there were no unions in those days?
    Certainly the trains were reliable and it was a franchise
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    TimS said:

    Farooq said:

    I wouldn't call it forced labour. Forced labour usually doesn't involve punishing your relatives too. This is something worse.

    I’d call it half-baked policy dropped out of the blue in an election campaign that’s not been properly thought through and is, essentially, a stunt.
    How many days have we been talking about it now? It's a stunt that is working.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,554
    TimS said:

    Farooq said:

    I wouldn't call it forced labour. Forced labour usually doesn't involve punishing your relatives too. This is something worse.

    I’d call it half-baked policy dropped out of the blue in an election campaign that’s not been properly thought through and is, essentially, a stunt.
    It’s one of those policies that you wish to see implemented just for the fallout..
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited May 28

    eek said:

    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from

    Further counter argument - a lot of the Tory 2019 vote was either 'get Brexit done', anti-Corbyn, or 'give Boris a go'. None of these factors apply now.

    Having said that, I do wake up in a cold sweat that somehow the Tories pull this off. If they do - I'm giving up, sod it, th country will deserve all it gets.
    With you 100%, on both halves of this.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,588
    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    There are, contrary to the obvious objections including Aristotle's seabattle, no present facts about the future. This is an element of Hume's celebrated problem of induction. Beliefs are fine; it's basically all we have, some of course with better grounds than others.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from

    Further counter argument - a lot of the Tory 2019 vote was either 'get Brexit done', anti-Corbyn, or 'give Boris a go'. None of these factors apply now.

    Having said that, I do wake up in a cold sweat that somehow the Tories pull this off. If they do - I'm giving up, sod it, th country will deserve all it gets.
    It’s why I don’t think those don’t knows break for the Tory party the way they would do in prior elections. 2019’was get Brecht done, it’s now been implemented and no one likes the end result..

    Which is why I went for Tories less than 50 seats. It’s not likely to happen but it’s more likely than the 4% chance the odds suggested.,
    Yes, get Brecht done - that was The Decision.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,331
    Ghedebrav said:

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Greetings from Hamburg

    Do you have a spare couple of hours for the Miniature Museum? Took my son there a few years ago and it’s wonderful.

    Germany’s No.1 rated tourist attraction, amazingly.

    (you may already know it)
    Do you mean the world’s biggest model railway? I went there last year. Well worth it, although it’s crowded, and realistically you have to book in advance.

    I’ll even waste todays photo on it:


    Even bigger than the pop music gentleman's model of the WCML?
    Waterman's layout is something like: "the world's largest portable layout," in that it could (and I believe was) set up in two different places within a certain period.

    I must admit that if I was building a massive model railway, I wouldn't make it of the WCML at Milton Keynes, or in the modern era! Then again, those choices probably made building it easier.
    No indeed - given the resources of time and money available to him for this I’d do something quite different - z scale 1970s Sapporo - Hakodate or something equally daft, or something wilfully abstract and wrong.
    I really wouldn't underestimate the time, money and effort he and his volunteers put into this over the last few years - and AIUI it's for charity. I follow the project on YouTube, and even the (IMV) limited scope of what they're doing is a truly mahoosive amount of work. If they'd gone for a more complex prototype they'd still be on the first board...

    I quite like the railway modeller's rule one: "It's my model, and I can run what I like!".
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    megasaur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    eek said:

    Fpt

    Going back to Avanti and Llandudno - there is no overtime ban at he moment but that doesn’t stop people not accepting the offer (unlike the Tory scheme it’s not compulsory) but the issue will be lack of route knowledge if the issue is drivers - school holidays and sickness can knock any route off, and it’s not a route everyone knows

    I note @Big_G_NorthWales immediately blamed it on the unions. Not sure the last time he went on a train but all of us rail users know that whilst the unions aren’t helping matters, the problems are far more systemic than that. Our railways are a shambles at the moment.
    I regularly travelled to London when on business and it was an excellent reliable service

    ASLEF have been holding the railways to ransom and the question is will Starmer concede their wage demsnds

    I would also comment that when they arrived 10 days ago the Euston Holyhead train was delayed by over 45 minutes in Chester due to lack of crew
    Could have been worse.

    Could have been 45 minutes at Stoke.
    That only happens when there is a Crewe shortage.
    I gather they can be Trent-chant about it.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,677

    eek said:

    Counter argument - we don’t know how efficient the anti- Tory vote will be and we have little guarantee that Tory voters will come out and actually vote

    Apart from some very generous odds on less than 50 Tory seats at the moment I’m going to sit this election out.

    What I’m curious about is the 165 seat max claim - was thinking the range was 20-200 so where does the 165 point come from

    Further counter argument - a lot of the Tory 2019 vote was either 'get Brexit done', anti-Corbyn, or 'give Boris a go'. None of these factors apply now.

    Having said that, I do wake up in a cold sweat that somehow the Tories pull this off. If they do - I'm giving up, sod it, th country will deserve all it gets.
    Also, a decent slice of the 2019 Conservative vote has gone to that blessed place where there are no elections. They've not really been replaced, and that effect about 1 million votes net.

    Everything points to the Conservatives not pulling anything off. But if I didn't live here and like the UK, I'd almost like to see them try and govern for another five years. It would be 1992-7 on some illegal drug.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    Ratters said:

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    There are fewer and fewer children each year right now. Down 17% in England and Wales from 2012 to 2022. And that trend is set to continue.

    Given the small percentage of the population in private schools, even with a fall in private school numbers, existing state schools should easily be able to absorb the slack. So no increase in cost from the current position, and an increase in tax revenue.

    Demographics on Labour's side here.
    That is not what the Guardian is saying
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

    Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
    The interesting argument here is it is the Guardian not any conservative supporting paper

    I think this may well be Starmer's first problem
    His second will be the adverse consequences of the ending of non dom tax status for those who have been willing to pay the not insubstantial fees but are not willing to pay tax on money not actually earned here. Once again the idea that those who choose to remain and pay more tax are enough to offset those who go elsewhere will fund anything much will prove optimistic.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982

    TimS said:

    Farooq said:

    I wouldn't call it forced labour. Forced labour usually doesn't involve punishing your relatives too. This is something worse.

    I’d call it half-baked policy dropped out of the blue in an election campaign that’s not been properly thought through and is, essentially, a stunt.
    How many days have we been talking about it now? It's a stunt that is working.
    For limited definitions of "working"

    Yes, everybody is talking about it.

    And they all think it's shit
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    edited May 28
    DavidL said:

    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    It doesn't stop a comfortable Labour victory but it does stop a massacre. Of course, this time it could be different.

    But that’s the point I was making. It’s just speculation.

    It sort-of has a basis in history although that’s highly selective: 2019 over say 1931, 1945, or 1997.

    As some of you may recall, I’ve argued that 2019 was a unique set of circumstances and a VERY bad baseline to use if you are betting money. It was ‘almost’ a referendum on Get Brexit Done following a remainer Parliament that made even me exasperated.

    Go back to 2017 or 2015 which were true General Elections.

    It’s really poor psephology to use 2019.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

    Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
    The interesting argument here is it is the Guardian not any conservative supporting paper

    I think this may well be Starmer's first problem
    His first problem was Jeremy Corbyn surely (solved). Then anti-semitism (solved). Then Momentum (solved). Then a 15 point polling deficit (solved). Etc. etc.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,399
    The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

    What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

    The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

    So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

    Its an outrage.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708

    Ratters said:

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    There are fewer and fewer children each year right now. Down 17% in England and Wales from 2012 to 2022. And that trend is set to continue.

    Given the small percentage of the population in private schools, even with a fall in private school numbers, existing state schools should easily be able to absorb the slack. So no increase in cost from the current position, and an increase in tax revenue.

    Demographics on Labour's side here.
    That is not what the Guardian is saying
    It's not the Guardian saying that. But an independent commentator. The Opinion section is specifically for a range of opinions, not the newspaper's editorial line.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,982
    I think this is true

    @paulhutcheon

    Private school moaning and carping is in overdrive on Labour’s policy to impose VAT on school fees.

    Labour will be delighted with the optics of the top 5pc in society demanding their tax breaks are maintained.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 69,033
    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    It doesn't stop a comfortable Labour victory but it does stop a massacre. Of course, this time it could be different.

    But that’s the point I was making. It’s just speculation.

    It sort-of has a basis in history although that’s highly selective: 2019 over say 1931, 1945, or 1997.

    As some of you may recall, I’ve argued that 2019 was a unique set of circumstances and a VERY bad baseline to use if you are betting money. It was ‘almost’ a referendum on Get Brexit Done following a remainer Parliament that made even me exasperated.

    Go back to 2017 or 2015 which were true General Elections.

    It’s really poor psephology to use 2019.
    Posted without comment.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,210
    edited May 28
    Scott_xP said:

    TimS said:

    Farooq said:

    I wouldn't call it forced labour. Forced labour usually doesn't involve punishing your relatives too. This is something worse.

    I’d call it half-baked policy dropped out of the blue in an election campaign that’s not been properly thought through and is, essentially, a stunt.
    How many days have we been talking about it now? It's a stunt that is working.
    For limited definitions of "working"

    Yes, everybody is talking about it.

    And they all think it's shit
    Has there been any polling on it since it was announced ?

    And 100% against would be amazing
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708

    The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

    What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

    The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

    So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

    Its an outrage.

    Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,331

    The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

    What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

    The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

    So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

    Its an outrage.

    It's not just 'goodwill' - they earn for the extra hours on rest day working. Many drivers like that extra money.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,072
    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    There is a bizarre variation in reasoned accounts that can be given of Tory seats in July. The case can be properly made for about 35, and the case (which I prefer factually but not politically) can be made for up to about 290.

    The biggest difference in about ex-Tory DKs and ex-Tory Reform preferences. Together they are 38% approx of 2019 Tory voters. That is 5 million voters. The gap between Con and Lab in 2019 was 3.5 million voters.

    If about a third of this group vote Tory in July, the Tories will do OK, though hopefully not win.

    I still think NoM is very likely.
    Well please make some money on this if you think it ‘very likely’.

    I am actually quite astonished at the lazy way some people are pulling local election voting into national intention to vote.

    This is even more suspect than using 2019 GE, which was at least a national vote.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708

    Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

    I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

    Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

    Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
    The interesting argument here is it is the Guardian not any conservative supporting paper

    I think this may well be Starmer's first problem
    Some of the opinion pieces in the Graun are very conservative.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    edited May 28
    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    There is a bizarre variation in reasoned accounts that can be given of Tory seats in July. The case can be properly made for about 35, and the case (which I prefer factually but not politically) can be made for up to about 290.

    The biggest difference in about ex-Tory DKs and ex-Tory Reform preferences. Together they are 38% approx of 2019 Tory voters. That is 5 million voters. The gap between Con and Lab in 2019 was 3.5 million voters.

    If about a third of this group vote Tory in July, the Tories will do OK, though hopefully not win.

    I still think NoM is very likely.
    Where do you get your 5 million ex Tory DK and Reform voters?

    It looks more like 1.7 million DK and a further 1.7 million Reform, 0.5 million will not vote and 1.2 million Deceased on these figures from January:

    https://x.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1745742534104535306?t=yC34sKa4LohRAFoaEdXcFA&s=19

    Of course it serves everyone to take up a close race, Tories, Labour, pollsters and pundits.

    But what if it isn't, and the polling is right? 1992 is a long time ago, and since then polls have been more accurate.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,639
    Heathener said:

    DavidL said:

    Heathener said:

    Lord Hayward may well be right, although the following two statements (four if you permit replays) don’t inspire confidence that this is based on anything other than a hunch:

    'I do believe the ‘don’t knows’ will vote in fairly large numbers, and the indications from local council results is that they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    There’s no indication from the local council results of anything firm at national level and there’s no evidence that can be pulled out to show ‘they are beginning to break towards the Conservatives.’

    And secondly, the ‘I believe’ comment shows that this isn’t based in evidence.

    His belief may be right. It may not be.

    Even when he repeats himself ;)

    It doesn't stop a comfortable Labour victory but it does stop a massacre. Of course, this time it could be different.

    But that’s the point I was making. It’s just speculation.

    It sort-of has a basis in history although that’s highly selective: 2019 over say 1931, 1945, or 1997.

    As some of you may recall, I’ve argued that 2019 was a unique set of circumstances and a VERY bad baseline to use if you are betting money. It was ‘almost’ a referendum on Get Brexit Done following a remainer Parliament that made even me exasperated.

    Go back to 2017 or 2015 which were true General Elections.

    It’s really poor psephology to use 2019.
    In a situation where the extreme unpopularity of the Tories is being driven almost entirely at national level, trying to project national elections using data from local election results is even more hazardous than usual.
This discussion has been closed.