The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.
Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.
The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.
Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...
The way he fell off he hadn't planned it he just had not learned how to balance on it
Are you a towel denier? Do you deny that the Lib Dem leader - may his health remain strong - had a towel on standby?
Hey, you sass that hoopy Ed Davey? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
I started to wonder if the Lib Dems had decided not to enter this year’s race as have heard so little about/from them so far but plenty from and about reform.
I wonder if this is partly due to my bugbear that political journalists are more interested in “the game” so reform v Tory is a psychodrama that’s fun and exciting with gossip and WhatsApp messages from “sources” whilst the Lib Dem’s are just boring.
The LibDems are just boring. To get attention, they need to return to being our third party for the PMQs slot and television invitations, and also to elect a charismatic leader like Paddy or Chat Show Charlie, even Jeremy Thorpe. Ed Davey could blow up Crufts without making the headlines. Aside from a walk-on role in the Post Office scandal, what's he known for?
Returning to 3rd party status in the Commons would probably be the target for Lib Dems this election, though rests largely on the likely SNP collapse.
Davey was quite an effective minister in the Coalition, pushing through renewable energy and abolishing mandatory retirement age, he was keen on supply side reforms for growth too.
Having seen him speak a couple of times live, he is good at this and would come across well in debates.
The Labour investigation into Diane Abbott over comments she made on racism was completed in December 2023, BBC Newsnight can reveal.
Ms Abbott, the long-standing MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, was given a formal warning over her conduct and required to complete an "antisemitism awareness course".
A source close to the veteran politician said despite that, she still had not been told whether she will be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate in her constituency at the general election.
As Farage gave his speech the BBC live coverage cut away and presenter Geeta Guru-Murthy said “Nigel Farage with his, erm, customary inflammatory language there at a Reform UK press conference.”
James Heale @JAHeale Farage is asked by a female journalist to define British values. Says “Well you’re here - I doubt you’d be welcome at that Angela Rayner meeting”
Sky have just shown Davey falling off a paddle board
What was he thinking if he wasn't familiar on how to use one
I'm not sure this is harmful, tbh. There's a well known 'pratfall effect' where we prefer slight imperfections in things and people.
I watched that clip and laughed and though, yup, that would happen to me too if I tried it. Making me like him more.
It's the reason why Boris was more loved after the infamous getting stuck on the zipline thing.
Things that are gaffes are things ordinary people can't relate to, that make you look less like one of us - the inability to hold a pint properly, or eat a bacon sarnie, or use a contactless card, or look like you've never used a petrol pump before.
However it also risks making him look like he is part of the heartwarming comedy spanner part of BGT before the main event/talent kicks in.
The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.
Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.
The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.
Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...
The way he fell off he hadn't planned it he just had not learned how to balance on it
Are you a towel denier? Do you deny that the Lib Dem leader - may his health remain strong - had a towel on standby?
As it was Ed Davey rather than Caroline Lucas, there was no rub of the Green.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.
Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.
The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.
Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...
Indeed he fell off 5 times, so was clearly not too bothered.
Indeed one of the falls that features on the clips looks suspiciously like a dive...
English Heritage are trying to prevent the Isle of White Coastal Path going along the coast near Osborne House, and want it diverted along several miles of A road instead.
Excuses around "security", but Osborne House is half a mile from the sea, and they give free rein to anyone who has paid to rent one of their cottages.
At the moment it requires aiui walking several miles down an A-road.
Given that English Heritage and Historic England are essentially Government bodies, I'd say it's time to complete the gaps left in the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 from the last time Labour were in.
Sky have just shown Davey falling off a paddle board
What was he thinking if he wasn't familiar on how to use one
I'm not sure this is harmful, tbh. There's a well known 'pratfall effect' where we prefer slight imperfections in things and people.
I watched that clip and laughed and though, yup, that would happen to me too if I tried it. Making me like him more.
It's the reason why Boris was more loved after the infamous getting stuck on the zipline thing.
Things that are gaffes are things ordinary people can't relate to, that make you look less like one of us - the inability to hold a pint properly, or eat a bacon sarnie, or use a contactless card, or look like you've never used a petrol pump before.
It also depends on how he responds.
Part of Sunak's problem with the drowned rat election announcement was that he wasn't able to remark on it, let alone joke about it.
Not entirely.
Sunak's problem was that he was trying to do something very serious, something that should have been planned well in advance, something that has been done many times before, and making an obvious pig's breakfast out of it. It was an area of core competency for him. Therefore his failure doesn't feel like a comedy pratfall that makes us like him more, although you could argue he could have laughed it off with a good quip (Boris would have).
Whereas "stick a middle aged man on a paddleboard" is inherently comedy territory before you even get started, and the inevitable pratfall is the awaited-for punchline. Much like Boris getting stuck on his zipline. If Ed Davey can come up with a good quip afterwards, so much the better. But there's a world of difference between a besuited Sunak cocking up a serious announcement outside number 10, and a lycra clad middle aged guy with a paunch falling off a paddleboard.
The Lib Dems should put out a very sombre tweet saying that Davey has had the necessary tests following his submersion and that Doctors are confident he has not picked up an infection.
Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.
When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.
Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.
Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.
I would make a different choice.
How do you define "very basic standard of living"?
How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?
That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.
Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman
As you don't have figures, you have no idea if it is affordable even with 100% tax rates for top earners.
Perhaps Starmer believes that your definition of 'very basic standard of living' is so high that it would be utterly unaffordable?
Do you really think government deliberately pads benefits for one or two children such that families can accommodate further children for no additional cost?
To get back to the point. There's no objective standard of what's affordable. With big budgets as governments have, we can usually afford what we think is important by compromising on things we think are less important. If he wanted to Starmer could easily choose to pay benefits for three or more children at the second and subsequent child rate. He doesn't want to.
Well, Musky Baby did recently claim that kids aren't expensive, and he's a GENIUS!!!!
You miss the point: you are calling for Starmer to commit to something that is not costed, and cannot be costed as you refuse to define *what* it means. As for your least sentence: it is the magic money tree once more.
I'm on the record as having said that *we* need to pay more tax, as public services need improving. I've been saying that for years. But if extra money goes for this undefined 'very basic standard of living', it will not be magically available for anything else - including other things that matter.
The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.
Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.
The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.
Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...
Indeed he fell off 5 times, so was clearly not too bothered.
Indeed one of the falls that features on the clips looks suspiciously like a dive...
Charlotte Green leader of Labour group on Hinckley & Bosworth Council to Lib Dems. Charlotte has joined the @libdems as she believes that only the Lib Dems can beat the Conservatives here in Hinckley and Bosworth.
Somewhat opportunistic
I do not see "opportunistic" as an insult. Better to take opportunities than to miss them, no?
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
Heck, it makes him look more human than Sunak and Starmer combined!
English Heritage are trying to prevent the Isle of White Coastal Path going along the coast near Osborne House, and want it diverted along several miles of A road instead.
Excuses around "security", but Osborne House is half a mile from the sea, and they give free rein to anyone who has paid to rent one of their cottages.
At the moment it requires aiui walking several miles down an A-road.
Given that English Heritage and Historic England are essentially Government bodies, I'd say it's time to complete the gaps left in the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 from the last time Labour were in.
Yes, I was talking to one of Mrs Foxy's cousins who is a campaigner for The Ramblers on the Island.
It's security of income that English Heritage (who run Osborne House) is most bothered about. They don't want people walking in for free to the grounds. A fence along the footpath would do the trick.
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
Heck, it makes him look more human than Sunak and Starmer combined!
...until you realise he was a PO Minister. He is not a human he is a snake.
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so than all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could achieve anything.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so than all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could achieve anything.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Your last line makes my sussy mind suspect that the core problem may not be with ministers, but with the civil service. Few of the MPs you mention are what I would call 'bad' people, who would want to do such harm, and they are from several different parties. When you get several or many people making a mistake, it can be a systematic rather than a personal failing.
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
Heck, it makes him look more human than Sunak and Starmer combined!
Those falls did look a bit deliberate to me. I think he is trying to squeeze the Monster Raving Loony vote.
The Lib Dems should put out a very sombre tweet saying that Davey has had the necessary tests following his submersion and that Doctors are confident he has not picked up an infection.
Surely that, after 45 minutes on hold, he's managed to secure a telephone appointment in two weeks' time to discuss possible referral for testing within the next 10-11 months?
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
Heck, it makes him look more human than Sunak and Starmer combined!
Those falls did look a bit deliberate to me. I think he is trying to squeeze the Monster Raving Loony vote.
Well, yes, particularly in those marginals where the Lib Dems are second to them.
Oh, you meant the Official Monster Raving Loonies?
Now there is a video doing the rounds of Sunak facing the wrong way during a campaign speech. All the TV cameras have is his back.
There must be a Labour mole.
I used to think the Labour mole was Boris Johnson. Perhaps it always was Sunak.
Either that or CCHQ have misunderstood the polling that the public want to see the back of Rishi Sunak.
(It's a juicy question of political strategy. How do you do a campaign focused in your leader when your leader is unpopular? And you have to use your leader because the alternatives are even worse?)
Fair play to him, he got back up onto that board several times to fall off again, and again and again. A bit like Lib Dem participation in general elections really.
Heck, it makes him look more human than Sunak and Starmer combined!
Those falls did look a bit deliberate to me. I think he is trying to squeeze the Monster Raving Loony vote.
I had a go at that the summer before last. It's, er, quite tricky. Surprisingly easy to stand up, but then once you start paddling you just catapult yourself into the sea. Oddly enough, I managed to stand on my head on the board relatively successfully. My daughters managed fine. Maybe you need a low centre of gravity or not to be a fat middle aged man. Bloody cold doing it in Windermere, though.
Now there is a video doing the rounds of Sunak facing the wrong way during a campaign speech. All the TV cameras have is his back.
There must be a Labour mole.
I used to think the Labour mole was Boris Johnson. Perhaps it always was Sunak.
Either that or CCHQ have misunderstood the polling that the public want to see the back of Rishi Sunak.
(It's a juicy question of political strategy. How do you do a campaign focused in your leader when your leader is unpopular? And you have to use your leader because the alternatives are even worse?)
or have decided that enough is enough and retired / quit...
The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.
Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.
The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.
Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...
Indeed he fell off 5 times, so was clearly not too bothered.
Indeed one of the falls that features on the clips looks suspiciously like a dive...
As Farage gave his speech the BBC live coverage cut away and presenter Geeta Guru-Murthy said “Nigel Farage with his, erm, customary inflammatory language there at a Reform UK press conference.”
James Heale @JAHeale Farage is asked by a female journalist to define British values. Says “Well you’re here - I doubt you’d be welcome at that Angela Rayner meeting”
Geeta later had to apologise on air for what she said.
Although to be fair if Novara Media are doing it again I might watch that instead. Comedy gold like their last effort doesn't come around too often and their glum faces as Starmer wins seats Corbyn lost will be hilarious.
Although to be fair if Novara Media are doing it again I might watch that instead. Comedy gold like their last effort doesn't come around too often and their glum faces as Starmer wins seats Corbyn lost will be hilarious.
Are Novara Media supporting Labour at the moment, or are they the sort of numpties who would rather see the Conservatives win than a Starmer-led Labour?
But yes, the last election night broadcast of theirs was fun.
As Farage gave his speech the BBC live coverage cut away and presenter Geeta Guru-Murthy said “Nigel Farage with his, erm, customary inflammatory language there at a Reform UK press conference.”
James Heale @JAHeale Farage is asked by a female journalist to define British values. Says “Well you’re here - I doubt you’d be welcome at that Angela Rayner meeting”
Geeta later had to apologise on air for what she said.
Quite right.
Talking about Farage without making it clear he's a twat is just not on.
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.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
that's deputy head for a primary school. In a secondary you'd be looking at more like 70k.
And for the "time to make efficiencies" crowd, deputy head for a small prep school in the independent sector is very probably less than £53k...
Now there is a video doing the rounds of Sunak facing the wrong way during a campaign speech. All the TV cameras have is his back.
There must be a Labour mole.
I think he was turning round to address the people sat behind him. But that is just daft. The audience is in front of you, watching on a screen, not the hand-picked stooges forced to endure your wibblings in person.
Patrick Flynn @patrickjfl · 21m Replying to @patrickjfl and @focaldataHQ These is your cheat sheet for identifying which pollster belongs in which group. Yellows and greens tend to show reduced Labour leads.
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.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
that's deputy head for a primary school. In a secondary you'd be looking at more like 70k.
And for the "time to make efficiencies" crowd, deputy head for a small prep school in the independent sector is very probably less than £53k...
Patrick Flynn @patrickjfl · 21m Replying to @patrickjfl and @focaldataHQ These is your cheat sheet for identifying which pollster belongs in which group. Yellows and greens tend to show reduced Labour leads.
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.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can
The Danish State can.
The Danish state can also provide housebuilding, functional police, border control, healthcare, and a justice system. In football terms if they're in the premier league of Governments, we're Torquay Utd.
They also bulldoze ethnic ghettoes which get monoculturally foreign and have some of the most fierce asylum and refugee laws in Europe, to ensure the assimilation/integration which is absolutely necessary to support widespread buy-in to the welfare state
You ok with that? Perhaps you are, but I note that lefties who admire Denmark seldom mentionn these aspects
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.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can
The Danish State can.
The Danish state can also provide housebuilding, functional police, border control, healthcare, and a justice system. In football terms if they're in the premier league of Governments, we're Torquay Utd.
They also bulldoze ethnic ghettoes which get monoculturally foreign and have some of the most fierce asylum and refugee laws in Europe, to ensure the assimilation/integration which is absolutely necessary to support widespread buy-in to the welfare state
You ok with that? Perhaps you are, but I note that lefties who admire Denmark seldom mentionn these aspects
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
What I learned on PB was that any criticism of Davey is down to Tories trying to deflect the blame. It was good to know.
With her as the candidate, I'd expect Alliance to take the seat back quite easily from the (interim) DUP leader, Gavin Robinson. She's currently the Justice Minister at Stormont, so will have to stand down if she wins.
Now there is a video doing the rounds of Sunak facing the wrong way during a campaign speech. All the TV cameras have is his back.
There must be a Labour mole.
I think he was turning round to address the people sat behind him. But that is just daft. The audience is in front of you, watching on a screen, not the hand-picked stooges forced to endure your wibblings in person.
They look very much as if they have been compulsorily volunteered to be there
In that case I will be watching ITV or Sky, unless the Conservatives are massacred, in which case I will want to see Kuenssberg’s face.
Do you think she's a Conservative supporter?
I sometimes wonder at people. Is there any evidence that Kuensberg is a Tory supporter? And no, asking questions about Starmer and Labour does not make a political reporter a Tory.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
What I learned on PB was that any criticism of Davey is down to Tories trying to deflect the blame. It was good to know.
Yes I think that is the LD spin. The truth is that all parties share the blame, but only one party has a leader who was once a PO minister.
As I say, either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up.
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.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can
The Danish State can.
The Danish state can also provide housebuilding, functional police, border control, healthcare, and a justice system. In football terms if they're in the premier league of Governments, we're Torquay Utd.
They also bulldoze ethnic ghettoes which get monoculturally foreign and have some of the most fierce asylum and refugee laws in Europe, to ensure the assimilation/integration which is absolutely necessary to support widespread buy-in to the welfare state
You ok with that? Perhaps you are, but I note that lefties who admire Denmark seldom mentionn these aspects
I'm actively for those.
I thought you might be, I doubt if many of the PB lefties agree
The Danes are quite right, of course. You can only get people to support a generous welfare state if they feel everyone in the country is invested, and not taking the piss, not bringing lots of crime and ecoinomic negatives. ie migrants must integrate, learn Danish, not form ghettoes, and if they arrive illegally, eff off
Denmark is, of course, implementing a version of Rwanda, if not by itself then with like-minded EU countries
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.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
that's deputy head for a primary school. In a secondary you'd be looking at more like 70k.
And for the "time to make efficiencies" crowd, deputy head for a small prep school in the independent sector is very probably less than £53k...
I would have thought it was nearer 40.
How do the school sizes compare though? (I've got suspicions but not numbers here.) Suspect the management overhead per pupil in the private sector is rather more than in state schools.
Glad to see DRoss launch the Scottish Tories campaign, saying that people need to vote Tory to get rid of the “stale and rotten” government in Holyrood.
DRoss is both an MP and MSP. Which means he can speak from personal experience of the “stale and rotten” government run by his party in Westminster.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
What I learned on PB was that any criticism of Davey is down to Tories trying to deflect the blame. It was good to know.
Yes I think that is the LD spin. The truth is that all parties share the blame, but only one party has a leader who was once a PO minister.
As I say, either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up.
It was also his inept response full of weasel words and blaming others "I regret I was not told the truth" stuff.
Like he was simply a sponge soaking up whatever they told him.
Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.
When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.
Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.
Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.
I would make a different choice.
How do you define "very basic standard of living"?
How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?
That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.
Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman
As you don't have figures, you have no idea if it is affordable even with 100% tax rates for top earners.
Perhaps Starmer believes that your definition of 'very basic standard of living' is so high that it would be utterly unaffordable?
Do you really think government deliberately pads benefits for one or two children such that families can accommodate further children for no additional cost?
To get back to the point. There's no objective standard of what's affordable. With big budgets as governments have, we can usually afford what we think is important by compromising on things we think are less important. If he wanted to Starmer could easily choose to pay benefits for three or more children at the second and subsequent child rate. He doesn't want to.
Well, Musky Baby did recently claim that kids aren't expensive, and he's a GENIUS!!!!
You miss the point: you are calling for Starmer to commit to something that is not costed, and cannot be costed as you refuse to define *what* it means. As for your least sentence: it is the magic money tree once more.
I'm on the record as having said that *we* need to pay more tax, as public services need improving. I've been saying that for years. But if extra money goes for this undefined 'very basic standard of living', it will not be magically available for anything else - including other things that matter.
It's very straightforward. It's £288 per month per child. Per child instead of stopping at child number 2. The government can do a simple multiplication of that amount by the number of children affected to get to the total amount. As we were happily affording more than this, in real terms, until 2017 when the government decided to punish children of parents the government determined were too poor and too feckless, I really don't think this is a huge unaffordable black hole.
Child poverty groups reckon removing the two child cap will remove 250000 children out of poverty on the official definition. It is the single most cost effective way to reduce child poverty, precisely because the introduction of the cap increased child poverty in the most efficient way in the first place.
Glad to see DRoss launch the Scottish Tories campaign, saying that people need to vote Tory to get rid of the “stale and rotten” government in Holyrood.
DRoss is both an MP and MSP. Which means he can speak from personal experience of the “stale and rotten” government run by his party in Westminster.
Tory. SNP. Same thing.
Interesting - I had forgotten he had stuck on as a MP, but presuimably he didn't want to trigger a by-electioon.
when i was on a menswear forum, a n00b claimed his shoes were handwelted, so an older forum member bought a pair of the shoes for $400, ripped them apart, and proved they were not handwelted, thus triggering a series of events that brought down a shoe factory in italy.. https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1795305742263828901
Glad to see DRoss launch the Scottish Tories campaign, saying that people need to vote Tory to get rid of the “stale and rotten” government in Holyrood.
DRoss is both an MP and MSP. Which means he can speak from personal experience of the “stale and rotten” government run by his party in Westminster.
Tory. SNP. Same thing.
Yes, but he's not Ed Davey. the LDs really should have changed their leader.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
What I learned on PB was that any criticism of Davey is down to Tories trying to deflect the blame. It was good to know.
Yes I think that is the LD spin. The truth is that all parties share the blame, but only one party has a leader who was once a PO minister.
As I say, either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up.
It was also his inept response full of weasel words and blaming others "I regret I was not told the truth" stuff.
Like he was simply a sponge soaking up whatever they told him.
To be fair, it’s clear there was a lot of misleading going on. And if you’re fundamentally honest (yes, I know we’re talking about politicians) you’re programmed to believe people who you think have no reason to lie. That’s what I find so upsetting about the Post Office; that there was such a culture of dishonesty. Surely someone must have a few sleepless nights.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
Bit ott that, Nigel. Wasn't trying to defend him, just trying to put a balanced view.
He certainly didn't help with his inept handling of the adverse publicity. However, when the full list of culprits is drawn up it will be mighty long one, and he'll be a fair way down it, along with all the other Ministers who followed a 'hands off' policy. That of course was the standard policy, which reflects a systemic issue at the heart of the scandal. As shareholder, the Government had an obligation to ask questions, but didn't.
This is an issue with all government-owned business, but the problems it creates rarely manifest themselves as catastrophically as in the PO scandal.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
Bit ott that, Nigel. Wasn't trying to defend him, just trying to put a balanced view.
In that case I will be watching ITV or Sky, unless the Conservatives are massacred, in which case I will want to see Kuenssberg’s face.
Do you think she's a Conservative supporter?
I sometimes wonder at people. Is there any evidence that Kuensberg is a Tory supporter? And no, asking questions about Starmer and Labour does not make a political reporter a Tory.
There was this infamous tweet three days before the 2019 General Election?
“So Matt Hancock was despatched to Leeds General (sorry not just Leeds Hospital) to try to sort out mess, hearing Labour activists scrambled to go and protest, and it turned nasty when they arrived - one of them punched Hancock’s adviser.”
Doesn't prove she's a Tory but she has form for just parroting lines fed to her by Tory staffers. cf the Susan Hall might win ramp based on over-excited Tory twitters and the Bernard Castle defence as written by Dominic Cummings himself.
Interestingly the Dutch coalition negotiations seem to have settled on a technocratic PM who was the former head of the immigration and counter-terrorism services.
His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"
I see the LDs have gone up three points on Sporting's seats market.
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Ed Davy has weaselled his way out of answering why he (and other PO ministers) didn't work out that it was a bit strange that sub postmasters could have such a high percentage of crims in their ranks. He was either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up. Perhaps all three. He is a disgrace and he should have resigned as LD leader.
On the PO thing, my understanding is that he is guilty as charged, but perhaps marginally less so that all the other ministers because he did actually speak with Bates, eventually, even if he didn't take any action.
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could make an impression.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
Erm, except that the only party that has a leader who was a PO minister and therefore should have known is the LDs.
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
What I learned on PB was that any criticism of Davey is down to Tories trying to deflect the blame. It was good to know.
Yes I think that is the LD spin. The truth is that all parties share the blame, but only one party has a leader who was once a PO minister.
As I say, either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up.
It was also his inept response full of weasel words and blaming others "I regret I was not told the truth" stuff.
Like he was simply a sponge soaking up whatever they told him.
To be fair, it’s clear there was a lot of misleading going on. And if you’re fundamentally honest (yes, I know we’re talking about politicians) you’re programmed to believe people who you think have no reason to lie. That’s what I find so upsetting about the Post Office; that there was such a culture of dishonesty. Surely someone must have a few sleepless nights.
Tony Blair by all accounts. Up all night but not thinking about the PO
Interestingly the Dutch coalition negotiations seem to have settled on a technocratic PM who was the former head of the immigration and counter-terrorism services.
when i was on a menswear forum, a n00b claimed his shoes were handwelted, so an older forum member bought a pair of the shoes for $400, ripped them apart, and proved they were not handwelted, thus triggering a series of events that brought down a shoe factory in italy.. https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1795305742263828901
I spent too long on Styleforum (the one concerned) in my early twenties. Learned some good stuff, but man were there some weirdos.
Comments
Maybe not.
Davey was quite an effective minister in the Coalition, pushing through renewable energy and abolishing mandatory retirement age, he was keen on supply side reforms for growth too.
Having seen him speak a couple of times live, he is good at this and would come across well in debates.
The Labour investigation into Diane Abbott over comments she made on racism was completed in December 2023, BBC Newsnight can reveal.
Ms Abbott, the long-standing MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, was given a formal warning over her conduct and required to complete an "antisemitism awareness course".
A source close to the veteran politician said despite that, she still had not been told whether she will be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate in her constituency at the general election.
As Farage gave his speech the BBC live coverage cut away and presenter Geeta Guru-Murthy said “Nigel Farage with his, erm, customary inflammatory language there at a Reform UK press conference.”
I assume that was in response to this:
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/1795387044975554634
James Heale
@JAHeale
Farage is asked by a female journalist to define British values. Says “Well you’re here - I doubt you’d be welcome at that Angela Rayner meeting”
Ed seems to be making a splash....
Davey: Hold my paddle...
Here's Ed pratfalling several times from different angles
Indeed one of the falls that features on the clips looks suspiciously like a dive...
English Heritage are trying to prevent the Isle of White Coastal Path going along the coast near Osborne House, and want it diverted along several miles of A road instead.
Excuses around "security", but Osborne House is half a mile from the sea, and they give free rein to anyone who has paid to rent one of their cottages.
At the moment it requires aiui walking several miles down an A-road.
Given that English Heritage and Historic England are essentially Government bodies, I'd say it's time to complete the gaps left in the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 from the last time Labour were in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvCzfC0zF2I
https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/2024/05/27/unfit-for-a-king/
Sunak's problem was that he was trying to do something very serious, something that should have been planned well in advance, something that has been done many times before, and making an obvious pig's breakfast out of it. It was an area of core competency for him. Therefore his failure doesn't feel like a comedy pratfall that makes us like him more, although you could argue he could have laughed it off with a good quip (Boris would have).
Whereas "stick a middle aged man on a paddleboard" is inherently comedy territory before you even get started, and the inevitable pratfall is the awaited-for punchline. Much like Boris getting stuck on his zipline. If Ed Davey can come up with a good quip afterwards, so much the better. But there's a world of difference between a besuited Sunak cocking up a serious announcement outside number 10, and a lycra clad middle aged guy with a paunch falling off a paddleboard.
You miss the point: you are calling for Starmer to commit to something that is not costed, and cannot be costed as you refuse to define *what* it means. As for your least sentence: it is the magic money tree once more.
I'm on the record as having said that *we* need to pay more tax, as public services need improving. I've been saying that for years. But if extra money goes for this undefined 'very basic standard of living', it will not be magically available for anything else - including other things that matter.
Better to take opportunities than to miss them, no?
It's security of income that English Heritage (who run Osborne House) is most bothered about. They don't want people walking in for free to the grounds. A fence along the footpath would do the trick.
It's a thing political leaders have to endure on the campaign trail - ritual humiliation. All part of the job.
There must be a Labour mole.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-davey-post-office-horizon-it-bates-b2474822.html
https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1795416143521255429/photo/1
Swinson, I believe, has more to answer for than most, whilst Normal Lamb is the stand out who really tried to do something, but was out of office before he could achieve anything.
The overall impression is that none of the Parties emerge with credit, and therefore attempts to pin the blame more on this one or that one really have no substance.
They all failed.
Full video: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-69068746
It shows the LD collective immorality that he has neither volunteered to stand down nor has been forced to. I guess they use the twisted and immoral logic that you have just done. The pathetic "my party right or wrong" mantra beloved of the lobotomised tribal party loyalist.
Slightly odd positioning, but maybe down to the broadcasters rather than being the Tories being at fault?
Oh, you meant the Official Monster Raving Loonies?
(It's a juicy question of political strategy. How do you do a campaign focused in your leader when your leader is unpopular? And you have to use your leader because the alternatives are even worse?)
Oddly enough, I managed to stand on my head on the board relatively successfully.
My daughters managed fine. Maybe you need a low centre of gravity or not to be a fat middle aged man.
Bloody cold doing it in Windermere, though.
https://x.com/bbclaurak/status/1795417741454705018?s=61
See 2 reasons to put the Sky feed on.
Although to be fair if Novara Media are doing it again I might watch that instead. Comedy gold like their last effort doesn't come around too often and their glum faces as Starmer wins seats Corbyn lost will be hilarious.
But yes, the last election night broadcast of theirs was fun.
Talking about Farage without making it clear he's a twat is just not on.
Still not as wet as Rishi Sunak.
Thank you @timfarron for being there to fish me out of the water.
https://www.itv.com/watch/theresa-may-the-accidental-prime-minister/
Patrick Flynn
@patrickjfl
·
21m
Replying to
@patrickjfl
and
@focaldataHQ
These is your cheat sheet for identifying which pollster belongs in which group. Yellows and greens tend to show reduced Labour leads.
https://x.com/patrickjfl/status/1795416143521255429
(Not that I mind Myrie that much, tbh.)
There is an argument that most of the time the Yellow and Greens are correct but that wasn't the case in 1997 and probably won't be this time round...
You ok with that? Perhaps you are, but I note that lefties who admire Denmark seldom mentionn these aspects
At least Davey turned up with a paddle.
Forced choices identify shy Tories but that doesn't mean they will come out to vote in this election.
There is an argument that most of the time the Yellow and Greens are correct but that wasn't the case in 1997 and probably won't be this time round...
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey takes a tumble from a paddleboard as he takes his campaign to Windermere in the Lake District"
https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1795403377267913066
With her as the candidate, I'd expect Alliance to take the seat back quite easily from the (interim) DUP leader, Gavin Robinson. She's currently the Justice Minister at Stormont, so will have to stand down if she wins.
As I say, either totally stupid, incompetent or in on the cover-up.
The Danes are quite right, of course. You can only get people to support a generous welfare state if they feel everyone in the country is invested, and not taking the piss, not bringing lots of crime and ecoinomic negatives. ie migrants must integrate, learn Danish, not form ghettoes, and if they arrive illegally, eff off
Denmark is, of course, implementing a version of Rwanda, if not by itself then with like-minded EU countries
https://uim.dk/media/11242/faelles-erklaering.pdf
DRoss is both an MP and MSP. Which means he can speak from personal experience of the “stale and rotten” government run by his party in Westminster.
Tory. SNP. Same thing.
Like he was simply a sponge soaking up whatever they told him.
Child poverty groups reckon removing the two child cap will remove 250000 children out of poverty on the official definition. It is the single most cost effective way to reduce child poverty, precisely because the introduction of the cap increased child poverty in the most efficient way in the first place.
when i was on a menswear forum, a n00b claimed his shoes were handwelted, so an older forum member bought a pair of the shoes for $400, ripped them apart, and proved they were not handwelted, thus triggering a series of events that brought down a shoe factory in italy..
https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1795305742263828901
Fiona Bruce would have been better, or Victoria Derbyshire.
Laura K - hmmm... I guess it had to be.
That’s what I find so upsetting about the Post Office; that there was such a culture of dishonesty. Surely someone must have a few sleepless nights.
Virendra Sharma in Ealing Southall (winner of the by-election in 2007)
https://x.com/VirendraSharma/status/1795139143908938074
John Cryer in Leyton & Wanstead (part of the 1997 intake, recent PLP chair, married to Ellie Reeves)
https://x.com/JohnCryerMP/status/1795166070745014331
He certainly didn't help with his inept handling of the adverse publicity. However, when the full list of culprits is drawn up it will be mighty long one, and he'll be a fair way down it, along with all the other Ministers who followed a 'hands off' policy. That of course was the standard policy, which reflects a systemic issue at the heart of the scandal. As shareholder, the Government had an obligation to ask questions, but didn't.
This is an issue with all government-owned business, but the problems it creates rarely manifest themselves as catastrophically as in the PO scandal.
https://x.com/bencoates1/status/1795418149766021540?s=46
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8389091/Cherie-Blair-Tony-still-excites-me-in-all-possible-ways.html