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.
You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."
I asked what that meant.
You said wibble.
I asked again.
It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.
Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.
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.
You may well be right, JJ, but the Inquiry will not be questioning Civi Servants or examining the political angle, so we may never find out.
I rather thought Paula Vennells might open up on those topics, but she chose to hold the party line, stonewalling and losing her memory, as need be. Perhaps she was fearfulof having to pay her legal fees herself.
Nick Wallis reckons the Government(s) worked very closely with the PO and that it was consulted on all major decisions. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that the sacking of Second Sight by PV could not possibly have been done without a nod from the government.
On Friday night after Gove announced his retirement there was supposed to be a wave of other Tory MPs standing down over the weekend. That seems to have not happened.
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.
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
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.
I quite like it.
For Boris, I always preferred the "bugger, there's a hole in the bottom of this river" one.
A former Plaid Cymru MP who accepted a police caution for assaulting his wife has announced he will not be standing in the general election.
Jonathan Edwards had been considering running against his former party, but on Tuesday said that on "deep reflection" he had decided it was time for him to step down.
Plaid Cymru had already not selected him for Caerfyrddin.
On Friday night after Gove announced his retirement there was supposed to be a wave of other Tory MPs standing down over the weekend. That seems to have not happened.
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.
He seemed to be enjoying himself too - exactly like Lib Dems when given the chance to take part in an election.....
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.
You may well be right, JJ, but the Inquiry will not be questioning Civi Servants or examining the political angle, so we may never find out.
I rather thought Paula Vennells might open up on those topics, but she chose to hold the party line, stonewalling and losing her memory, as need be. Perhaps she was fearfulof having to pay her legal fees herself.
Nick Wallis reckons the Government(s) worked very closely with the PO and that it was consulted on all major decisions. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that the sacking of Second Sight by PV could not possibly have been done without a nod from the government.
I don't think PV was as much holding the party line as avoiding incriminating herself further...
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
Do you not mean Trevor Phillips on Sky as he is excellent
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
Which is a very good reason for joining the Lib Dems .
A former Plaid Cymru MP who accepted a police caution for assaulting his wife has announced he will not be standing in the general election.
Jonathan Edwards had been considering running against his former party, but on Tuesday said that on "deep reflection" he had decided it was time for him to step down.
Plaid Cymru had already not selected him for Caerfyrddin.
For God's sake Baldrick, you're standing to be an MP. I'll just put 'fraud and sexual deviancy.'
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.
You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."
I asked what that meant.
You said wibble.
I asked again.
It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.
Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.
I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
Do you have any evidence of any mistakes that Laura Kuenssberg has made in a pro-Labour direction? It's a bit like a football referee, all decisions could be in the ballpark of "I've seen those calls for a penalty given/not given" and the referee could be having a complete 'mare. If all the marginal decisions are going one way then there might be bias involved.
To be clear, I think any bias that Laura Kuenssberg had is pro-government rather than pro-Tory. The BBC has always been rather too cowed by the governing party and by definition the opposition PR is less newsworthy than the government's
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.
You may well be right, JJ, but the Inquiry will not be questioning Civi Servants or examining the political angle, so we may never find out.
I rather thought Paula Vennells might open up on those topics, but she chose to hold the party line, stonewalling and losing her memory, as need be. Perhaps she was fearfulof having to pay her legal fees herself.
Nick Wallis reckons the Government(s) worked very closely with the PO and that it was consulted on all major decisions. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that the sacking of Second Sight by PV could not possibly have been done without a nod from the government.
I don't think PV was as much holding the party line as avoiding incriminating herself further...
It's hard to see how she avoids a charge of perverting the course of justice, but it will all take time, she's retired, and she will get off with a light sentence if indeed she is found guilty. So the party line would involve not incriminating herself or others more than was absolutely unavoidable.
That's what she did. It's not exactly coming clean though, is it? Had she done that, I think we might have seen some surprising and very prominent faces 'in the dock'.
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
Do you not mean Trevor Phillips on Sky as he is excellent
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?
He's known to me as the politician who first brought in the ratchet to increase energy efficiency of rented accommodation - very commendable.
Tories just killed it (1-2 years ago?) for both rental and owner-occupied, which is completely loopy.
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.
The official definition of poverty is nonsense based on a ratio of median income. So if bottom 20% get richer but the middle class gets even more richer, poverty goes up.
The best way to reduce actual poverty is by incentivizing people to work. Not by funding these families, often from religious immigrant communities, to have a dozen kids paid for by the taxpayer. Of course the left is up in arms about this, as they fawn over the tribal politics in some of these communities.
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.
You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."
I asked what that meant.
You said wibble.
I asked again.
It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.
Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.
I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.
Yes, you are talking nonsense. You did not mention the two-child cap until late-on in the conversation.
So let us take what you did say: "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living"
So if you mean removing the two-child cap - which is certainly an arguable position - let me ask you a question:
How does removing the cap help families with two or fewer children who currently have less than a very basic standard of living (*)? Or are you claiming that no families with two or fewer children have less than a 'very basic' standard of living?
You have changed your position. Perhaps not in your head, but on what you wrote. And what you wrote initially was meaningless guff.
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
None of this explains how the same person can "see" different bias from different presenters in the same organisation. I've always "felt" that Kuenssberg is quite pro-Tory biased in a way I would not attribute to other BBC journos. Now, I might be wrong about that, but it's nothing to do with a generalised belief about the BBC.
I think people sometimes see things mistakenly. An awful lot of people believe in conspiracy theories, for instance.
If you want to know why the Tories are focusing on National Service and the 'quadruple lock', it's not just that their core voters are elderly. It's that voters are, full stop.
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 want to see ol Derek have a go at this fkr (perhaps he already has and I've missed it).
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.
You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."
I asked what that meant.
You said wibble.
I asked again.
It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.
Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.
I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.
Yes, you are talking nonsense. You did not mention the two-child cap until late-on in the conversation.
So let us take what you did say: "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living"
So if you mean removing the two-child cap - which is certainly an arguable position - let me ask you a question:
How does removing the cap help families with two or fewer children who currently have less than a very basic standard of living (*)? Or are you claiming that no families with two or fewer children have less than a 'very basic' standard of living?
You have changed your position. Perhaps not in your head, but on what you wrote. And what you wrote initially was meaningless guff.
(*) Whatever that means...
I'm keeping out of this debate - but the big issue comes with blended families who end up having more than 2 children in the family for reasons - that puts them in almost impossible situations that Twin A discusses weekly as we get told the latest disaster that befolds one of a number of families who have cubs in her Scout Cub pack...
And I think that's the thing Osbourne missed here - quite often the largest families are because of factors outside anyones control and were never intentional which was the original argument for the 2 child limit...
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
I think a basic issue is that the Tories have been in power so long now that a generation of journalists' careers have grown with them and so have stronger sourcing relationships with CCHQ/Downing Street and are so used to their framing they do it unthinkingly.
It happened to some extent in the New Labour years when I think the likes of McBride have described how they could influence journalists by providing a story and evidence that was favourable to them. And had the access as all the political journalists' first port of call and most important source was No. 10 or 11 in a way that CCHQ then in opposition, or a think tank calling it rubbish wasn't - only there for balancing quotes.
It'll likely change again when a new generation are close to Morgan McSweeney or whoever.
Journalists get too comfortable when they are around power too long. That certainly seems true of Laura K, who I remember being fearsome and interesting about 15 years ago. But seems to have badly declined into just repeating party lines fed to her without using any editorial judgment to discern whether they are rubbish before broadcasting them to the nation.
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 want to see ol Derek have a go at this fkr (perhaps he already has and I've missed it).
Derek posted over the weekend that he doesn't like attacking people's tastes directly which is why he did the Piers Morgan V Kermit the Frog comparison...
If you want to know why the Tories are focusing on National Service and the 'quadruple lock', it's not just that their core voters are elderly. It's that voters are, full stop.
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.
There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess. Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.
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.
You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."
I asked what that meant.
You said wibble.
I asked again.
It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.
Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.
I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.
Yes, you are talking nonsense. You did not mention the two-child cap until late-on in the conversation.
So let us take what you did say: "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living"
So if you mean removing the two-child cap - which is certainly an arguable position - let me ask you a question:
How does removing the cap help families with two or fewer children who currently have less than a very basic standard of living (*)? Or are you claiming that no families with two or fewer children have less than a 'very basic' standard of living?
You have changed your position. Perhaps not in your head, but on what you wrote. And what you wrote initially was meaningless guff.
(*) Whatever that means...
I'm keeping out of this debate - but the big issue comes with blended families who end up having more than 2 children in the family for reasons - that puts them in almost impossible situations that Twin A discusses weekly as we get told the latest disaster that befolds one of a number of families who have cubs in her Scout Cub pack...
And I think that's the thing Osbourne missed here - quite often the largest families are because of factors outside anyones control and were never intentional which was the original argument for the 2 child limit...
It's an appalling policy and remains to Labour's continued shame that they are going to do nothing about it.
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
Do you have any evidence of any mistakes that Laura Kuenssberg has made in a pro-Labour direction? It's a bit like a football referee, all decisions could be in the ballpark of "I've seen those calls for a penalty given/not given" and the referee could be having a complete 'mare. If all the marginal decisions are going one way then there might be bias involved.
To be clear, I think any bias that Laura Kuenssberg had is pro-government rather than pro-Tory. The BBC has always been rather too cowed by the governing party and by definition the opposition PR is less newsworthy than the government's
I'd argue that what some see as pro-government is simply passing on information from a source. Now you might argue that she is not being critical enough or revealing the source enough but there is a game being played. If you want access you play that game.
We will shortly see how she deals with a different government - perhaps people may change their views?
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
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 want to see ol Derek have a go at this fkr (perhaps he already has and I've missed it).
Derek posted over the weekend that he doesn't like attacking people's tastes directly which is why he did the Piers Morgan V Kermit the Frog comparison...
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.
To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".
Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.
The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.
Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.
So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.
This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.
I have relatives with 2 children who could qualify for those.
They did the first one, which involved years attending multiple meetings, often with a specialist barrister present including reports that cost 4 figures a time.
Then the second one they did not bother and spent the money on support / education instead.
This was Surrey.
One of the kids spent some time at a small private school when the local State School were unable to manage bullying, then went to a state weekly boarding school, and got her degree a couple of years ago. The other has had good experiences at initially a local CofE school, then I am not sure where next.
My take on VAT on Private Schools is that it may not be a good thing as it comes across as a gimmick to throw a bone to the rabid dogs of the further left.
The risk is that all the cooperation which has been built up since 2006, or whenever the last lot of reform was, which is a benefit of £500m->£1bn per annum, will be lost.
OTOH the State system will not need to stretch very far for capacity, and is - by most metrics I see - improved.
Politically, Rishi has shat enough poos in his own bed that the VAT on Private Schools measure is small by comparison as a weight on the other side.
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 want to see ol Derek have a go at this fkr (perhaps he already has and I've missed it).
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
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.
So no evidence then? I'm afraid all too many journo's are now conduits from Twitter etc - this looks no different to that.
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
None of this explains how the same person can "see" different bias from different presenters in the same organisation. I've always "felt" that Kuenssberg is quite pro-Tory biased in a way I would not attribute to other BBC journos. Now, I might be wrong about that, but it's nothing to do with a generalised belief about the BBC.
I think people sometimes see things mistakenly. An awful lot of people believe in conspiracy theories, for instance.
Granted, but people also see things right something too. Many a tale of people thinking there was something just not right about Jimmy Savile without knowing any specifics.
The general view that Kuenssberg shows her Tory bias is NOT something that's explained a lefty stance (because not all presenters are judged similarly), and is also NOT based on people in general just being wrong all the time (because obviously they aren't). There's something about Kuenssberg that makes a lot of people see her, specifically, as a bit Tory.
One of the possible reasons for this is that she actually is a bit of a Tory and doesn't do a good job of hiding it. I'm sure other plausible explanations are out there.
I suspect she is mostly an establishment journalist who can get better stories and scoops by pandering to whoever is in government rather than a Tory (or Labour) shill. We shall see in the next year or two.
The cancellation of HS2 will come to be seen as the biggest blunder of the last 100 years.
Really? There's a lot of competition.
How about privatising Britain's nuclear power plants and not building any new ones - so that all those vital skills were lost? What about choosing not to build tidal power plants? What about making the wartime work on computers top secret so that Britain failed to build a computing industry after WWII? How about supporting Bush II's invasion of Iraq in 2003? Suez?
I'm sure there are countless others. I have a feeling that Britain might come to really regret no longer having a blast furnace in the country.
Britain got the double up with computers. Public key encryption which underlies web security and hence ecommerce was invented here and kept top secret until it was reinvented in America by the RSA people some years later.
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.
Repeating this stuff is not exactly convincing, clearly Ed Davey gets under your skin... but then after the last five Tory leaders, a but of decency and good humour is rather overdue.
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 want to see ol Derek have a go at this fkr (perhaps he already has and I've missed it).
Derek posted over the weekend that he doesn't like attacking people's tastes directly which is why he did the Piers Morgan V Kermit the Frog comparison...
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.
Repeating this stuff is not exactly convincing, clearly Ed Davey gets under your skin... but then after the last five Tory leaders, a but of decency and good humour is rather overdue.
Do you think the Lib Dems should have tried to keep Gordon Brown in office in 2010?
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.
There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess. Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.
You know why the Tories are gunning for him?
Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.
The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.
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.
Repeating this stuff is not exactly convincing, clearly Ed Davey gets under your skin... but then after the last five Tory leaders, a but of decency and good humour is rather overdue.
It seems very convincing to me. Just for the avoidance of doubt I have leant my vote to the LDs for the last two GEs. Ed Davy is either an idiot or he is a liar. I think he is unlikely to be the former so I conclude he is probably the latter. Anyone who knew about the PO scandal and did nothing is absolute scum, so decency is not an appropriate descriptor for Davy. He should do what he seems to demand others to do (with monotonous regularity) and resign
As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.
Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.
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.
Repeating this stuff is not exactly convincing, clearly Ed Davey gets under your skin... but then after the last five Tory leaders, a but of decency and good humour is rather overdue.
Do you think the Lib Dems should have tried to keep Gordon Brown in office in 2010?
Apart from the numbers not making that viable, it isn't really tenable to prop up a government that has just lost massive numbers of seats. Even modest losses like May in 2017 made for a crippled government.
The only real alternative to the Coalition in 2010 would have been Confidence and Supply for Conservatives, and that may well have worked out worse for the LibDems..
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.
There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess. Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.
You know why the Tories are gunning for him?
Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.
The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.
It's one of the most self-serving apologies of all time: "I'm sorry I did not see through the Post Office’s lies."
How can he have any credibility in politics when his pitch is that he's simply too feeble and trusting to do the job?
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.
There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess. Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.
You know why the Tories are gunning for him?
Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.
The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.
He never said sorry not a true apology, he offered some weasel words apologising that other people misled him/he believed the Post Office
Pat McFadden handled it with aplomb, admitted to errors, apologised.
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.
Repeating this stuff is not exactly convincing, clearly Ed Davey gets under your skin... but then after the last five Tory leaders, a but of decency and good humour is rather overdue.
It seems very convincing to me. Just for the avoidance of doubt I have leant my vote to the LDs for the last two GEs. Ed Davy is either an idiot or he is a liar. I think he is unlikely to be the former so I conclude he is probably the latter. Anyone who knew about the PO scandal and did nothing is absolute scum, so decency is not an appropriate descriptor for Davy. He should do what he seems to demand others to do (with monotonous regularity) and resign
Yes, yes but do you think he should just resign as Liberal Democrat leader? Should he voluntarily leave Parliament, should he submit himself for arrest or prosecution and on what charge?
Should ALL other MInisters (both past and present) also resign from whatever roles they now hold and submit themselves for prosecution?
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party. Nobody can stop them from polarising. This is going to be one heck of an obnoxious manifesto.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.
Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.
A largely elected upper house though could well elect a Conservative majority mid term of a Labour government which Starmer does not want
As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.
Is that working peers for capacity, or to balance?
What happens if they take out all the hereditaries within the first 12 months?
Currently: Con 270, Crossbench 184, Lab 175, LDem 80.
So Abolish the 92 hereditaries (46 Tory, 4 Lab, 33 Crossbench and odds'n'sods), appoint 50-60 Labour and a few Con / LDem.
The balance is reversed, Lab have more than Tory, and the HoL is ~760 from 783. Easy and obvious step one if in the manifesto, perhaps with a no-end-of-term peerages this time promise "as we are planning to reform the Lords" if they want to keep Sunak's Shysters out.
Plus 3 or 4 Lords a month are popping their clogs.
After a year or so of thinking, do a more comprehensive reform.
I'm tempted to suggest a retirement age for Lords (150+ over 80 at present), but I think that fits into step two.
Farage has said as the Tories can't win you may as well vote Reform to tell the Tory party the direction they need to go in.
That attack point that won't have much impact early on but will be a killer as the election draws to the close if Rishi hasn't significantly reduced the polling gap...
Farage has said as the Tories can't win you may as well vote Reform to tell the Tory party the direction they need to go in.
That attack point that won't have much impact early on but will be a killer as the election draws to the close if Rishi hasn't significantly reduced the polling gap...
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
The chancellor told an audience in London that obliging migrants to carry out community work would help introduce them to the people they will be living alongside and would show they could contribute to society.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
Is there any indication whatsoever that Sunak favours the death penalty?
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.
There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess. Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.
You know why the Tories are gunning for him?
Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.
The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.
It's one of the most self-serving apologies of all time: "I'm sorry I did not see through the Post Office’s lies."
How can he have any credibility in politics when his pitch is that he's simply too feeble and trusting to do the job?
Hmmm let me see. Within the space of days he went from being an MP in the 3rd party to a government minister with direct responsibility for the Post Office. A few days into his unexpected job there is a letter needing a response. Like literally anyone else in a new role he asked for information.
Of all the ministers his is the most credible defence. The rest knew they were the party of government before getting the job. And had colleagues who had been ministers to ask for background. Not Davey.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
Is there any indication whatsoever that Sunak favours the death penalty?
He appears to be attempting to execute the remaining members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party, either through electoral disaster or death from embarrassment.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
The chancellor told an audience in London that obliging migrants to carry out community work would help introduce them to the people they will be living alongside and would show they could contribute to society.
Posted without comment
For the Conservatives, shadow home secretary David Davis said the proposal was ill thought out and might mean forcing some professionals who had been in Britain for years to stop working for a time to carry out community service.
As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.
Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.
The Lords is growing because Cameron wanted to restore the centuries old Conservative hegemony, and I imagine that Starmer will want to ramp up the red team that is currently 100 behind.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
Zionview letter 2024. The internationalist blob has almost succeeded in getting its deep agent (codename KORMA) into Downing Street. You MUST vote Tory, or Putin wins!!!!!
As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.
Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.
I don't think that SKS's school VAT thing is 'because he's a socialist', it's because this is one bit of red meat he can chuck at supporters and he has precious little other room for manoeuvre. There is a political consensus in this country that neither party is prepared to challenge - it is a very left wing consensus imo, but it won't do SKS much good to tell his supporters that. So we're left with a bit of sticking it to the rich.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
The chancellor told an audience in London that obliging migrants to carry out community work would help introduce them to the people they will be living alongside and would show they could contribute to society.
Posted without comment
For the Conservatives, shadow home secretary David Davis said the proposal was ill thought out and might mean forcing some professionals who had been in Britain for years to stop working for a time to carry out community service.
We're only weeks away from the boot being on the other foot again and liberal Tories will once again rail against an authoritarian Labour government.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
Is there any indication whatsoever that Sunak favours the death penalty?
He appears to be attempting to execute the remaining members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party, either through electoral disaster or death from embarrassment.
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.
You said: ".. ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living."
I asked what that meant.
You said wibble.
I asked again.
It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.
Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.
I probably shouldn't engage on this nonsense. The discussion since the start has been on the removal of the two child cap to go back to the situation before, which is a specific measure. I'm glad it's sorted out though.
Yes, you are talking nonsense. You did not mention the two-child cap until late-on in the conversation.
So let us take what you did say: "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living"
So if you mean removing the two-child cap - which is certainly an arguable position - let me ask you a question:
How does removing the cap help families with two or fewer children who currently have less than a very basic standard of living (*)? Or are you claiming that no families with two or fewer children have less than a 'very basic' standard of living?
You have changed your position. Perhaps not in your head, but on what you wrote. And what you wrote initially was meaningless guff.
(*) Whatever that means...
I'm keeping out of this debate - but the big issue comes with blended families who end up having more than 2 children in the family for reasons - that puts them in almost impossible situations that Twin A discusses weekly as we get told the latest disaster that befolds one of a number of families who have cubs in her Scout Cub pack...
And I think that's the thing Osbourne missed here - quite often the largest families are because of factors outside anyones control and were never intentional which was the original argument for the 2 child limit...
That's a very fair point. Edge cases really muck things up.
This sort of thing is probably a double edged sword for Reform. Not sure all those who see immigration as a key issue want to be complete arseholes about it.
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
Who cares?
Well Scott would have reposted the thoughts of hundreds of people that no one has ever heard of if Sunak had done this.
I don't think that SKS's school VAT thing is 'because he's a socialist', it's because this is one bit of red meat he can chuck at supporters and he has precious little other room for manoeuvre. There is a political consensus in this country that neither party is prepared to challenge - it is a very left wing consensus imo, but it won't do SKS much good to tell his supporters that. So we're left with a bit of sticking it to the rich.
"Very left wing consensus" is a stretch.
Have you have considered that you might be very right wing?
Did Ed Davey fall off a boat twice? Because one piece of footage seems to show Tim Farron nearby, and another one doesn't. But maybe that was because of different camera angles.
I don't think that SKS's school VAT thing is 'because he's a socialist', it's because this is one bit of red meat he can chuck at supporters and he has precious little other room for manoeuvre. There is a political consensus in this country that neither party is prepared to challenge - it is a very left wing consensus imo, but it won't do SKS much good to tell his supporters that. So we're left with a bit of sticking it to the rich.
"Very left wing consensus" is a stretch.
Have you have considered that you might be very right wing?
I don't think any of us considers that we are 'very' anything - that's the nature of being a person. As such, I qualified my statement with 'imo' (standing for 'in my opinion') so I'm not quite sure why the twatty snark was called for.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
Not really, most of the civil service, BBC, universities, CBI, even public school teachers are not Brexiteer Conservatives
Did Ed Davey fall off a boat twice? Because one piece of footage seems to show Tim Farron nearby, and another one doesn't. But maybe that was because of different camera angles.
A boat - its a paddle board not a boat but then not everyone is nautically minded
Did Ed Davey fall off a boat twice? Because one piece of footage seems to show Tim Farron nearby, and another one doesn't. But maybe that was because of different camera angles.
Did Ed Davey fall off a boat twice? Because one piece of footage seems to show Tim Farron nearby, and another one doesn't. But maybe that was because of different camera angles.
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.
She made her name in 2010 reporting on the coalition discussions and had an inside track in those. She’s never really shaken that off. She destroyed Truss in that famous interview. However, while I don’t know she’s a Tory, some of her output (most recently that credulous crap about Khan v Hall) doesn’t do her any favours at all.
The BBC used to spend as much as 18 months preparing their special election night studio. But they probably don't need as long these days because so much is done virtually. Building a special physical set isn't really necessary.
Doctor Who and Sherlock writer Steven Moffat: "our current government basically found somebody else's mandate down the back of a sofa and that's not how it's supposed to work."
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.
Or a ha-ha (sunken wall for the uninformed) to preserve the view.
As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.
Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.
I have just received a copy of my haematologist report to my GP practice, and with my cardiologist comments about my pacemaker , I realise just how serious and life threatening the last few months have been.
My wife and I and our family are so grateful for the life saving interventions of the medics and whilst I am not out of the woods we have so much to be grateful for
Doctor Who and Sherlock writer Steven Moffat: "our current government basically found somebody else's mandate down the back of a sofa and that's not how it's supposed to work."
Funny, that's how many of us felt about his time in charge of Who.
"“It’s also a form of commerce,” he continued, “and it makes money. But it’s an art. And no one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is.”"
They should ask Mister Dreyfuss if his current idea of morality includes banning black women from attending the Oscars:
"Hattie McDaniel was truly an inspiration and trailblazer for many stars. In 1940, while being the only Black woman in attendance at the Oscars, she became the first African American to win an Academy Award. She was also segregated and had to sit in the back by herself, not among her Gone with the Wind co-stars. She won for her portrayal of Mammy in the 1939 film Gone with the Wind."
As it happens, Labour will need to appoint a whole bunch of peers to make up for the whole bunch of peers appointed by the Conservatives.
Or maybe just maybe turn the upper chamber into something mostly/fully democratically elected. One of the arguments for throwing out most of the hereditary peers was to reduce the bloated membership of the House of Lords, it was around 1,200 and the reform reduced that down to about 550, now it's closing in on 800 and ever growing.
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.
There isn't a single Lib Dem leader you ever supported, I guess. Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.
You know why the Tories are gunning for him?
Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.
The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.
It's one of the most self-serving apologies of all time: "I'm sorry I did not see through the Post Office’s lies."
How can he have any credibility in politics when his pitch is that he's simply too feeble and trusting to do the job?
Hmmm let me see. Within the space of days he went from being an MP in the 3rd party to a government minister with direct responsibility for the Post Office. A few days into his unexpected job there is a letter needing a response. Like literally anyone else in a new role he asked for information.
Of all the ministers his is the most credible defence. The rest knew they were the party of government before getting the job. And had colleagues who had been ministers to ask for background. Not Davey.
Davey is due to appear before the Inquiry, but not until after the election.
My guess is that he will say he was lied. It is quite possible that's the truth.
So a "Ming vase strategy" means trying to prevent the opponent from polarising? I guess that might work if the opponent were the AfD or Reform UK or some other outfit that was unensconced in positions of influence in a country. But this is the Tory party.
It's working so far. Short of declaring war, what capacity do the Tories have to polarise the electorate now?
They've already proposed reintroducing national service and their manifesto isn't even out yet. They're more than a political party and they have respect in the City, clubs, BBC, at major newspapers, in the armed forces, top schools, etc. - almost wherever there is high privilege. But I'm not sure that's what you meant. Policywise I could imagine them promising a referendum on bringing back the death penalty, maybe some even nastier humiliation of immigrants that comes from left field.
Not really, most of the civil service, BBC, universities, CBI, even public school teachers are not Brexiteer Conservatives
To be picky, most of everybody is very much not Brexiteer Conservatives
Did Ed Davey fall off a boat twice? Because one piece of footage seems to show Tim Farron nearby, and another one doesn't. But maybe that was because of different camera angles.
Was Tim Farron walking on the water as Ed Davey fell into it?
Doctor Who and Sherlock writer Steven Moffat: "our current government basically found somebody else's mandate down the back of a sofa and that's not how it's supposed to work."
Dr Who is a load of shite, and Brown didn't win a general election. Apart from that, well done.
"British number one Cameron Norrie said he is "devastated" after he was knocked out in the first round of the French Open by Russian Pavel Kotov.
World number 57 Kotov beat Norrie in five sets 4-6 6-3 3-6 7-6 (7-5) 6-2 to record just his second victory in a Grand Slam. It is the first time Norrie has lost in the opening round of a major since the 2022 Australian Open."
Comments
I asked what that meant.
You said wibble.
I asked again.
It now, apparently, means removing the two-child cap.
Now that we can discuss. But it is *not* the same as "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living," which is something rather different. If that's what you meant, say it, not your initial silly and meaningless phrase.
I rather thought Paula Vennells might open up on those topics, but she chose to hold the party line, stonewalling and losing her memory, as need be. Perhaps she was fearfulof having to pay her legal fees herself.
Nick Wallis reckons the Government(s) worked very closely with the PO and that it was consulted on all major decisions. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that the sacking of Second Sight by PV could not possibly have been done without a nod from the government.
Why am I not surprised !
I think its the old billy balance issue again that the BBC suffers from. If you are of the left, you think the BBC is biased in favour of the right. If you are of the right, you think its a den of socialists. Neither is correct. It seems that some labour supporters are upset that Starmer and labour have had questions asked. The horror. How very dare they. Etc.
Now on a sunday morning I much prefer Trevor McDonald on Sky, but he's not available for the BBC so they employ their own staff...
For Boris, I always preferred the "bugger, there's a hole in the bottom of this river" one.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9hmtj
Jonathan Edwards had been considering running against his former party, but on Tuesday said that on "deep reflection" he had decided it was time for him to step down.
To be clear, I think any bias that Laura Kuenssberg had is pro-government rather than pro-Tory. The BBC has always been rather too cowed by the governing party and by definition the opposition PR is less newsworthy than the government's
That's what she did. It's not exactly coming clean though, is it? Had she done that, I think we might have seen some surprising and very prominent faces 'in the dock'.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/jobs/career-advice/trainee-train-driver-50k-starting-salary-perk/
Tories just killed it (1-2 years ago?) for both rental and owner-occupied, which is completely loopy.
The best way to reduce actual poverty is by incentivizing people to work. Not by funding these families, often from religious immigrant communities, to have a dozen kids paid for by the taxpayer. Of course the left is up in arms about this, as they fawn over the tribal politics in some of these communities.
So let us take what you did say: "... ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living"
So if you mean removing the two-child cap - which is certainly an arguable position - let me ask you a question:
How does removing the cap help families with two or fewer children who currently have less than a very basic standard of living (*)? Or are you claiming that no families with two or fewer children have less than a 'very basic' standard of living?
You have changed your position. Perhaps not in your head, but on what you wrote. And what you wrote initially was meaningless guff.
(*) Whatever that means...
If you want to know why the Tories are focusing on National Service and the 'quadruple lock', it's not just that their core voters are elderly. It's that voters are, full stop.
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1795368444977889716
And I think that's the thing Osbourne missed here - quite often the largest families are because of factors outside anyones control and were never intentional which was the original argument for the 2 child limit...
It happened to some extent in the New Labour years when I think the likes of McBride have described how they could influence journalists by providing a story and evidence that was favourable to them. And had the access as all the political journalists' first port of call and most important source was No. 10 or 11 in a way that CCHQ then in opposition, or a think tank calling it rubbish wasn't - only there for balancing quotes.
It'll likely change again when a new generation are close to Morgan McSweeney or whoever.
Journalists get too comfortable when they are around power too long. That certainly seems true of Laura K, who I remember being fearsome and interesting about 15 years ago. But seems to have badly declined into just repeating party lines fed to her without using any editorial judgment to discern whether they are rubbish before broadcasting them to the nation.
ITV is the place to be: Ed Balls and Geo Osborne.
https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1785413336366
The young may be so bloody angry this time - especially over national service - that they do actually turn out.
Ed Davey is an expert in his field (energy) way more than any Tory, and is also a very decent human being, which is also rather rare on Tory circles.
We will shortly see how she deals with a different government - perhaps people may change their views?
Evgeny v. Liberace with Big L winning on restraint, good taste, tailoring and the all important silhouette.
They did the first one, which involved years attending multiple meetings, often with a specialist barrister present including reports that cost 4 figures a time.
Then the second one they did not bother and spent the money on support / education instead.
This was Surrey.
One of the kids spent some time at a small private school when the local State School were unable to manage bullying, then went to a state weekly boarding school, and got her degree a couple of years ago. The other has had good experiences at initially a local CofE school, then I am not sure where next.
My take on VAT on Private Schools is that it may not be a good thing as it comes across as a gimmick to throw a bone to the rabid dogs of the further left.
The risk is that all the cooperation which has been built up since 2006, or whenever the last lot of reform was, which is a benefit of £500m->£1bn per annum, will be lost.
OTOH the State system will not need to stretch very far for capacity, and is - by most metrics I see - improved.
Politically, Rishi has shat enough poos in his own bed that the VAT on Private Schools measure is small by comparison as a weight on the other side.
Because he said sorry. That he got it wrong. And that having tried to make amends too late that more should have been done.
The Tories hate this because since 2015 every PO minister has been Tory. And not a single one of them has said a thing. Or done anything.
The only real alternative to the Coalition in 2010 would have been Confidence and Supply for Conservatives, and that may well have worked out worse for the LibDems..
How can he have any credibility in politics when his pitch is that he's simply too feeble and trusting to do the job?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/01/ed-davey-apologises-for-his-role-in-post-office-horizon-scandal
Pat McFadden handled it with aplomb, admitted to errors, apologised.
No one else has.
Should ALL other MInisters (both past and present) also resign from whatever roles they now hold and submit themselves for prosecution?
What happens if they take out all the hereditaries within the first 12 months?
Currently: Con 270, Crossbench 184, Lab 175, LDem 80.
So Abolish the 92 hereditaries (46 Tory, 4 Lab, 33 Crossbench and odds'n'sods), appoint 50-60 Labour and a few Con / LDem.
The balance is reversed, Lab have more than Tory, and the HoL is ~760 from 783. Easy and obvious step one if in the manifesto, perhaps with a no-end-of-term peerages this time promise "as we are planning to reform the Lords" if they want to keep Sunak's Shysters out.
Plus 3 or 4 Lords a month are popping their clogs.
After a year or so of thinking, do a more comprehensive reform.
I'm tempted to suggest a retirement age for Lords (150+ over 80 at present), but I think that fits into step two.
Farage has said as the Tories can't win you may as well vote Reform to tell the Tory party the direction they need to go in.
That attack point that won't have much impact early on but will be a killer as the election draws to the close if Rishi hasn't significantly reduced the polling gap...
In the best possible taste.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6399457.stm
The chancellor told an audience in London that obliging migrants to carry out community work would help introduce them to the people they will be living alongside and would show they could contribute to society.
Of all the ministers his is the most credible defence. The rest knew they were the party of government before getting the job. And had colleagues who had been ministers to ask for background. Not Davey.
The House of Lords has this handy interactive dashboard that shows party strength by year.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/house-of-lords-data-dashboard-party-and-group-strengths-and-voting/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45981790
So "ever-growing" is not correct.
I do not know what it peaked at, however. I suspect it has been basically flat in numbers for quite a long time.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1795434385988284784?s=46
This sort of thing is probably a double edged sword for Reform. Not sure all those who see immigration as a key issue want to be complete arseholes about it.
Have you have considered that you might be very right wing?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/article/2024/may/28/we-deeply-regret-the-distress-cinema-apologies-for-richard-dreyfuss-comments-at-jaws-screening
He did it THREE times:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cjkkn6pvgppo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cjkkn6pvgppo
Not difficult.
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/discover/history/gardens-landscapes/what-is-a-ha-ha
My wife and I and our family are so grateful for the life saving interventions of the medics and whilst I am not out of the woods we have so much to be grateful for
And then we got Chris Chibnall...
They should ask Mister Dreyfuss if his current idea of morality includes banning black women from attending the Oscars:
"Hattie McDaniel was truly an inspiration and trailblazer for many stars. In 1940, while being the only Black woman in attendance at the Oscars, she became the first African American to win an Academy Award. She was also segregated and had to sit in the back by herself, not among her Gone with the Wind co-stars. She won for her portrayal of Mammy in the 1939 film Gone with the Wind."
https://www.remindmagazine.com/article/11527/hattie-mcdaniel-first-african-american-oscar-winner-gone-with-the-wind/
"The hotel had a strict no-Blacks policy, but allowed McDaniel in as a favor."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattie_McDaniel
Many 'starts' at the time agreed with the stance of segregating her. It has only been seen as a scandal since.
Vote winner?
My guess is that he will say he was lied. It is quite possible that's the truth.
World number 57 Kotov beat Norrie in five sets 4-6 6-3 3-6 7-6 (7-5) 6-2 to record just his second victory in a Grand Slam. It is the first time Norrie has lost in the opening round of a major since the 2022 Australian Open."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/live/cn335e079xxt