I presume he has been selected if he's left his LBC job.
The Tunbridge Wells Conservative Association parliamentary candidate selection meeting is Friday, Dale lives in the constituency and has put himself forward for selection but is not yet nominated
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
I have a mechanical engineering degree and two post-graduate law diplomas but haven’t even made a dent in the loans.
And the point is... most people aren't meant to. It's a graduate tax that was called something different because reasons. Paying off the loan completely means that you've hit the jackpot and paid back several times more than your degree cost, but you've earned so much that I'm not sure you can begrudge that.
It's actually quite an elegant system. The only question is whether the current government is too dim to understand it, or so malign that they are happy to misrepresent what's going on.
Or both, I suppose.
A graduate tax that only those with poor parents pay.
At this point of the campaign, I think the polls were misleading as to the outcome in 2010 and 2017, fairly good in 2019, and I can't remember whether 2015 was close or far but I don't recall anyone saying "majority".
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
State directed knowledge and intellectual inquiry? No thanks.
Mikey Gove's finally slunk off embarrassed. Remarkably some Tories still think he did a good at education. Your regular reminder Cameron won teachers in 2010 before the twat who wrote opinion columns decided that was a transferrable skill to writing a curriculum.
Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow chancellor, ruled out any new tax rises if Labour wins power and promised never to “play fast and loose” with the country’s finances.
At her first event of the election campaign at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby on Tuesday, she was asked whether Labour would need to put up any taxes to ease pressure on public services.
She said: “There are no additional tax rises needed beyond the ones that I’ve said.”
Haven't the IFS said there needs to be big cuts in the next 5 years if no additional taxes? And that factors in the massive fiscal drag already programmed in.
I think this is back to mapping the unspecified unknowns.
Rachel Reeves is tiptoeing through the tulips.
We need to map the remaining tulips she has not stood on.
I am, as you know and love to mock, a lawyer. I mostly do employment law but had a bit of a sideline in business visas for my clients. Became a big earner post-Brexit. I ran a really anodyne, boring, Twitter account advertising myself as an “Employment and Business Immigration Lawyer” as the Marketing Dept got keen on social media. Nothing political, stupefyingly dull, updates on legal changes, I got to a measly 500 followers - mostly other lawyers. My big moment was being retweeted by Joshua Rosenberg. I tweeted really dull stuff the PR team suggested, avoiding politics.
However, starting in about 2014 or 2015, I started getting abuse. Snide comments at first, then over time they started to get more personal, and then, in 2022, I became of of these lawyers -
The worst actual DM a threat of comedy death, the guy had imagination, but it directly referenced Rwanda. Others referenced Patel’s speeches. Eventually I closed the account anyway - before Braverman. I don’t do any asylum work, the immigration practice I had was visas for complained and HNWI’s, the sort of people “Global Britain” was supposed to be attracting, but nevertheless I was clearly an enemy of the people.
Tories also hate me because I’m married to a foreigner. My specific foreigner is a white Irish-American New Englander but, nevertheless, the hoops we have had to jump through regarding her immigration status have grown increasingly tighter. Now she’s just taken dual nationality the issues will have stopped but we met when I was a student and we would not be allowed to get married now.
So, if not me, then the Tories don’t want “people like me” to vote for them. So I won’t.
I’m not really a “victim”. Others have it far worse than me. The list of people Tories hate is long. But you can see why I can’t see myself as the the sort of person they’re gunning for.
You are a good person Doug and I am glad to have you posting here. I am sorry for the way you have been treated.
Good for you. Until enough of us stand together and say "No more, this far and no more, there can be no more slightly mad and weird threats on social media against wealthy people" then these slightly mad and weird threats on social media against wealthy people will inexorably continue and possibly WORSEN until millionaire lawyers with their rich Boston born wives become slightly anxious before lunch. And the people in Ukraine think they have it bad?
This, this here. This is where we must finally stand, and turn, and FIGHT
DEFEND THE WEALTHY IMMIGRATION LAWYERS
IIRC it was you who pointed out that most people live their lives online these days. I don't like it but that's how it's gone. We used to believe that we lived in a country where most people thought like us, for any given definition of "us". But now we have access to social media and now we know that for any given definition of "us" there will be people who hate us and want us dead, and that there are people in other countries who think more like "us" than our compatriots. This leads to a loosening of the nation-state and a growth in anxiety, both of which I hate.
Well yes maybe whatever: but the last people I will feel sorry for, in this context, is very wealthy lefty immigration lawyers
I do not personally wish ill on @dougseal, of course, but I cannot find it in me to feel deep sinks of sympathy
In which case, why bother commenting? Unless, of course, you are a troublemaking arsehole. You should get a job with some right wing rag like the Spectator.
Sadly, writing for the world's most prestigious and longest running English language magazine - the Spectator - is very much out of my league. I leave that to its various famous contributors, like Graham Greene, George Orwell, @SeanT, Alexander Pope, Sylvia Plath, sundry Prime Ministers and Chancellors, and Lionel Shriver. And Taki. For me it is the humble Knapper's Gazette, but maybe one day. Who knows?
It's a shitty rag wherein 87.4% of its writers are pretty standard journeymen churning out pedestrian prose which panders to and stokes the prejudices of the red cord-wearing rural types you enjoy making fun of so much yet of whom for some unaccountable reason you are in awe.
12.6% of its writers get the joke and manage to turn out great prose which laughs at that demographic without it being obvious.
Despite your huge self-regard in particular when you come onto PB to parade your supposed sophistication to the yokels, you are comfortably in the former group.
You actually took the pains to redirect that to a new post, bless
If you're aiming for @SeanT he has I believed moved on, anyway, and now writes for Unherd
What care I? I write for the Knapper's Gazette and I do not aim for such heights, the Spectator was the favourite magazine of Ted Hughes, T S Eliot, e e Cummings, and Evelyn Waugh, I am but a knapper
Today, I leafleted the house where Robert Graves lived, 1940 to 1945.
I first became suspicious when I started to see the influx of money into Sliven. I wondered how these people had got such money.
When I received that information I started to check myself and began my own investigation. I eventually concluded that we were talking about maybe £200 million every year from the UK.
The money coming into Sliven transformed the area. It did so in terms of property, but also people were buying designer clothes, and opening shops, casinos."
I first became suspicious when I started to see the influx of money into Sliven. I wondered how these people had got such money.
When I received that information I started to check myself and began my own investigation. I eventually concluded that we were talking about maybe £200 million every year from the UK.
The money coming into Sliven transformed the area. It did so in terms of property, but also people were buying designer clothes, and opening shops, casinos."
A similar thing happened in the Netherlands, although it eventually led to over-zealous policing which itself turned into a scandal that brought down the Dutch government.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
I have a mechanical engineering degree and two post-graduate law diplomas but haven’t even made a dent in the loans.
And the point is... most people aren't meant to. It's a graduate tax that was called something different because reasons. Paying off the loan completely means that you've hit the jackpot and paid back several times more than your degree cost, but you've earned so much that I'm not sure you can begrudge that.
It's actually quite an elegant system. The only question is whether the current government is too dim to understand it, or so malign that they are happy to misrepresent what's going on.
Or both, I suppose.
A graduate tax that only those with poor parents pay.
You wouldn't want anyone else to accumulate wealth, would you?
It's a good observation. A graduate tax based on student debt serves to entrench wealth inequality despite being superficially progressive.
I first became suspicious when I started to see the influx of money into Sliven. I wondered how these people had got such money.
When I received that information I started to check myself and began my own investigation. I eventually concluded that we were talking about maybe £200 million every year from the UK.
The money coming into Sliven transformed the area. It did so in terms of property, but also people were buying designer clothes, and opening shops, casinos."
Larry King the US talk host used to tell the story of how, on government benefits in New York in the 40s, inspectors would call at random to check on them, including making sure the meat in the fridge was not too expensive.
We don't want that, of course, but it might be time to have all recipients of welfare check in in person once a year, say.
I first became suspicious when I started to see the influx of money into Sliven. I wondered how these people had got such money.
When I received that information I started to check myself and began my own investigation. I eventually concluded that we were talking about maybe £200 million every year from the UK.
The money coming into Sliven transformed the area. It did so in terms of property, but also people were buying designer clothes, and opening shops, casinos."
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
I first became suspicious when I started to see the influx of money into Sliven. I wondered how these people had got such money.
When I received that information I started to check myself and began my own investigation. I eventually concluded that we were talking about maybe £200 million every year from the UK.
The money coming into Sliven transformed the area. It did so in terms of property, but also people were buying designer clothes, and opening shops, casinos."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom If understand the first graphic in that article, the United Kingdom will soon have fewer pupils in your elementary schools. (Here in the Seattle area, a similar demographic pattern is already leading to the closing of elementary schools, even in places where the population is growing.)
(I don't know enough about your school systems to guess what might be the consequences. but do fear that you, like we, might soon be facing some painful choices.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom If understand the first graphic in that article, the United Kingdom will soon have fewer pupils in your elementary schools. (Here in the Seattle area, a similar demographic pattern is already leading to the closing of elementary schools, even in places where the population is growing.)
(I don't know enough about your school systems to guess what might be the consequences. but do fear that you, like we, might soon be facing some painful choices.)
I know from local education admissions people that birth rates have plummeted in my area, so closures will be inevitable.
On PM Sunak's ability to serve in an army: In "An Army at Dawn", Rick Atkinson gives some of the standards for the American army, back in 1940: "A conscript had to stand at least five feet tall and weigh 105 pounds; possess twelve or more of his natural thirty-two teeth; and be free of flat feet, venereal disease and hernias. More than forty of every hundred men were rejected, .. . . " (p. 9)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Sunak could pass those standards, easily.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
I have a mechanical engineering degree and two post-graduate law diplomas but haven’t even made a dent in the loans.
And the point is... most people aren't meant to. It's a graduate tax that was called something different because reasons. Paying off the loan completely means that you've hit the jackpot and paid back several times more than your degree cost, but you've earned so much that I'm not sure you can begrudge that.
It's actually quite an elegant system. The only question is whether the current government is too dim to understand it, or so malign that they are happy to misrepresent what's going on.
Or both, I suppose.
Its a malign system not an elegant one.
Why should someone be on a 9% higher tax rate than someone else of the exact same income, simply because they worked hard at getting an education?
The system should be scrapped. Everyone who earns the same income should pay the same rate of tax.
On PM Sunak's ability to serve in an army: In "An Army at Dawn", Rick Atkinson gives some of the standards for the American army, back in 1940: "A conscript had to stand at least five feet tall and weigh 105 pounds; possess twelve or more of his natural thirty-two teeth; and be free of flat feet, venereal disease and hernias. More than forty of every hundred menwere rejected, .. . . " (p. 9)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Sunak could pass those standards, easily.
Boy, people must have been in horrendous condition.
Other policies around uni. The 2-year courses, part-time ones with a job and also making it more attractive not all student move away from home. You can make uni cheaper through these approaches.
That last one might be a false economy. iirc students living at home are more likely to drop out.
I first became suspicious when I started to see the influx of money into Sliven. I wondered how these people had got such money.
When I received that information I started to check myself and began my own investigation. I eventually concluded that we were talking about maybe £200 million every year from the UK.
The money coming into Sliven transformed the area. It did so in terms of property, but also people were buying designer clothes, and opening shops, casinos."
Sobering to think this was going on at the same time as innocent postmasters and mistresses were being hounded by investigators for non-existent fraud.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
They've decided to close down the chemistry department at Aston University I believe. Very surprising.
Other policies around uni. The 2-year courses, part-time ones with a job and also making it more attractive not all student move away from home. You can make uni cheaper through these approaches.
That last one might be a false economy. iirc students living at home are more likely to drop out.
We need to split out Correlation vs Causation. Living at home while doing university is a significant minority at the moment, what is the reason they don't go away. Cost? Poor Grades? Mature Students?
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
Other policies around uni. The 2-year courses, part-time ones with a job and also making it more attractive not all student move away from home. You can make uni cheaper through these approaches.
That last one might be a false economy. iirc students living at home are more likely to drop out.
We need to split out Correlation vs Causation. Living at home while doing university is a significant minority at the moment, what is the reason they don't go away. Cost? Poor Grades? Mature Students?
Or financially or medically supporting their family, perhaps.
Other policies around uni. The 2-year courses, part-time ones with a job and also making it more attractive not all student move away from home. You can make uni cheaper through these approaches.
That last one might be a false economy. iirc students living at home are more likely to drop out.
We need to split out Correlation vs Causation. Living at home while doing university is a significant minority at the moment, what is the reason they don't go away. Cost? Poor Grades? Mature Students?
Or financially or medically supporting their family, perhaps.
Right, I don't think those choosing to study from home at the moment are a "normal" sample of the 18 year old population. I think for most its seen as a right of passage to do so. There are normally complicating factors to why they haven't.
Where as in Europe, many more young people continue to live at home during their university studies. In fact, its really only the elite (in terms of grades) that move a long way from home to university in some countries.
There of course advantages to moving out of home, but the nowadays the cost of student rents etc are very high. Its very expensive thing to do, and if you find it isn't for you, you picked the wrong course, you have just racked up £15-20k debt in one year.
My general point is university degrees for the majority of this very rigid, you do 3-4 years fulltime living away from home. More flexibility in the system doesn't seem like a bad idea.
Other policies around uni. The 2-year courses, part-time ones with a job and also making it more attractive not all student move away from home. You can make uni cheaper through these approaches.
That last one might be a false economy. iirc students living at home are more likely to drop out.
We need to split out Correlation vs Causation. Living at home while doing university is a significant minority at the moment, what is the reason they don't go away. Cost? Poor Grades? Mature Students?
Probably a lack of family history, so not appreciating the 3-year gap year aspect to student life. The reason it causes a higher drop out rate is likely that if you are at home you party with your chums, but if you are away you party with other students who provide social cues to study and revise.
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
I cant help think that the D Abbott thing, although a bit messy, has come v early on in the campaign so has little impact on the GE itself. It certainly points to future battles and may help Corbyn and a few others but that again plays into Starmer's hands as a moderniser. Whilst the 12 point 'gap' boosts some Tory morale it isnt a gamechanger and as others have said means virtually nothing.
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
I cant help think that the D Abbott thing, although a bit messy, has come v early on in the campaign so has little impact on the GE itself. It certainly points to future battles and may help Corbyn and a few others but that again plays into Starmer's hands as a moderniser. Whilst the 12 point 'gap' boosts some Tory morale it isnt a gamechanger and as others have said means virtually nothing.
What do others think about the Diane Abbott row?
I think it is a really shabby way to treat her. Corbyn deserved what he got. Abbott doesn’t. But this seems to be how SKS is running labour. It will all come back to bite him. It’s fine while you’re winning but the tide will turn.
I presume he has been selected if he's left his LBC job.
The Tunbridge Wells Conservative Association parliamentary candidate selection meeting is Friday, Dale lives in the constituency and has put himself forward for selection but is not yet nominated
Well, after North Norfolk, I guess he will be used to losing to a Liberal Democrat.
I was thinking earlier, was it 2010, where we had a poster who would pop up only to post leaks of latest polling several hours early? And they were always correct.
Bunnco was it? Had a friend who worked at one of the papers, the Sun, I think?
He was an unbearable narcissist as I recall. Only ramped polls when they were better for the Tories. Otherwise stayed quiet, which in and of itself told its own story.
I presume he has been selected if he's left his LBC job.
The Tunbridge Wells Conservative Association parliamentary candidate selection meeting is Friday, Dale lives in the constituency and has put himself forward for selection but is not yet nominated
They ought to ask Konstantin Kisin to be their candidate imo.
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
As some of us may have suggested a few weeks ago. He needs to avoid being within half a mile of a helicopter for the whole campaign, no matter how inconvenient that might be.
(I do wonder about him being on his own on that train though, let’s hope for his sake he hasn’t sent aides ahead of him with red boxes on the government “Private Jet”).
Surely Labour must have a few surprises in their manifesto . At the moment the briefings seem to be that what we’ve heard already is basically it .
I’m wondering whether tax avoidance is going to do more heavy lifting with recouping money due to fraud during the pandemic joining the party!
I doubt it - because recouping money from pandemic fraud is a one-off gain - whereas what matters is the ongoing deficit.
In particular they have to show debt falling as a % of GDP in year 5. Recouping money from pandemic fraud in year 1 or year 2 doesn't contribute anything to that - other than the absolutely miniscule interest saving on a marginally lower stock of debt.
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
Surely they should have learned from the Clegg experience, that the leader needs to be in one of the big offices rather than a token DMP role running nothing?
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
Surely Labour must have a few surprises in their manifesto . At the moment the briefings seem to be that what we’ve heard already is basically it .
I’m wondering whether tax avoidance is going to do more heavy lifting with recouping money due to fraud during the pandemic joining the party!
I wouldn't be surprised if there were, well, no surprises at all. The Labour campaign appears to be dialling the old maxim about Governments losing elections rather than Oppositions winning them up to eleven.
They're going to be as boring as possible, try to avoid offering any eye-catching commitments that the Tories can spin as a threat to the all-important grey vote, and stick mainly to criticising the Government for being bonkers and desperate. It's clearly what they think is most likely to get them to a majority, and they may well be proven right.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
Let's hope that poll calms the horses and the Conservatives don't deploy their nuclear option, capital punishment for nonce taxi drivers and baby killing nurses.
Trump complaining last night he wasn't allowed to use the "advice of counsel" defence. Except, of course, he was.
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify. https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
Within 72 hours, possibly much less, the jury will return their verdit - that it does.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
I’d be surprised if there’s a verdict . I expect a hung jury . Complicating matters for the prosecution is not just two lawyers on the jury but even in NY you’ll still find the odd Trump cult member who will refuse to convict.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
Surely Labour must have a few surprises in their manifesto . At the moment the briefings seem to be that what we’ve heard already is basically it .
I’m wondering whether tax avoidance is going to do more heavy lifting with recouping money due to fraud during the pandemic joining the party!
I wouldn't be surprised if there were, well, no surprises at all. The Labour campaign appears to be dialling the old maxim about Governments losing elections rather than Oppositions winning them up to eleven.
They're going to be as boring as possible, try to avoid offering any eye-catching commitments that the Tories can spin as a threat to the all-important grey vote, and stick mainly to criticising the Government for being bonkers and desperate. It's clearly what they think is most likely to get them to a majority, and they may well be proven right.
It's very interesting to note what the Tories are not talking about so far in this election - public services, the NHS, the cost of living, housing, transport etc. At some point they are going to have to join Labour in focusing on them.
Well at least Sir Ed brought some colour to the campaign today when falling off his paddle board (otherwise it would have been Farage ranting about the boats in a pub). Better than Starmer and Sunak wandering around factories all day with workers bored whitless listening to them rambling on when they should be getting on with their work.
What happened to campaign rallies and meeting voters in the street and getting on your soapbox?
That Farage is just making any old shit up. I've never seen boats in a pub.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
Yes, fair enough. I was doing my best to be balanced!
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
I agree . I expect the gap to close . I’d be shocked if Labour are more than ten points ahead close to polling day . Maybe I’m being overly cautious .
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
Let's hope that poll calms the horses and the Conservatives don't deploy their nuclear option, capital punishment for nonce taxi drivers and baby killing nurses.
Capital punishment for baby killing nurses?
That might just get people thinking with the latest cause celebre.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
I can see it. It depends on what is uppermost in voter's minds at the end of the campaign.
If voters are mostly thinking about the chaos of the Liz Truss ministry, and ensuring that the Tories don't do it again, then we'll see a 20-point Labour lead in the actual vote.
If voters end up worrying that Labour are a bit shifty, and not being entirely honest about their plans for government, then the lead could easily be reduced to single figures.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
But most people are responding during the earlier part of the fieldwork.
Surely Labour must have a few surprises in their manifesto . At the moment the briefings seem to be that what we’ve heard already is basically it .
I’m wondering whether tax avoidance is going to do more heavy lifting with recouping money due to fraud during the pandemic joining the party!
I wouldn't be surprised if there were, well, no surprises at all. The Labour campaign appears to be dialling the old maxim about Governments losing elections rather than Oppositions winning them up to eleven.
They're going to be as boring as possible, try to avoid offering any eye-catching commitments that the Tories can spin as a threat to the all-important grey vote, and stick mainly to criticising the Government for being bonkers and desperate. It's clearly what they think is most likely to get them to a majority, and they may well be proven right.
It's very interesting to note what the Tories are not talking about so far in this election - public services, the NHS, the cost of living, housing, transport etc. At some point they are going to have to join Labour in focusing on them.
Labour's pledge to get waiting lists down to 18 weeks* by the end of parliament is a very substantial promise.
*England only, I think. The other nations being devolved, but presumably getting similar investment.
Caution reigns in Starmers world, probably because unlike Sunaks random policy generator there is a likelihood that he will be expected to deliver.
I’ve done a fair bit of canvassing in my time and I would be dubious. It’s a mugs game extrapolating 30 seconds of doorstep chat into a picture of what issues are motivating voters.
It’s obviously the issue she wants to be number one on the doorstep. I’m sure it comes up and her appearance on the doorstep might prompt the conversation to head there quickly. When I was a teenager doing canvassing folk would often refer to youth disorder and how nice to have a young person not running amok. Had it been an issue I was bothered by I could easily through confirmation bias plus the prompting effect have decided it had more salience than it did. I’m sure I did succumb to such ideas on issues that I was interested in.
Surely they should have learned from the Clegg experience, that the leader needs to be in one of the big offices rather than a token DMP role running nothing?
I don't think it really matters one way or the other. Merkel told Clegg that the smaller party in a two party coalition always gets crushed and she was right. I suppose the inevitable crushing is worth it for a transitory opportunity to sup from the goblet of power.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
Based on gut feeling? I don't see what sense it makes to pick and choose between polls on that basis.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Surely Labour must have a few surprises in their manifesto . At the moment the briefings seem to be that what we’ve heard already is basically it .
I’m wondering whether tax avoidance is going to do more heavy lifting with recouping money due to fraud during the pandemic joining the party!
I wouldn't be surprised if there were, well, no surprises at all. The Labour campaign appears to be dialling the old maxim about Governments losing elections rather than Oppositions winning them up to eleven.
They're going to be as boring as possible, try to avoid offering any eye-catching commitments that the Tories can spin as a threat to the all-important grey vote, and stick mainly to criticising the Government for being bonkers and desperate. It's clearly what they think is most likely to get them to a majority, and they may well be proven right.
It's very interesting to note what the Tories are not talking about so far in this election - public services, the NHS, the cost of living, housing, transport etc. At some point they are going to have to join Labour in focusing on them.
Labour's pledge to get waiting lists down to 18 weeks* by the end of parliament is a very substantial promise.
*England only, I think. The other nations being devolved, but presumably getting similar investment.
Caution reigns in Starmers world, probably because unlike Sunaks random policy generator there is a likelihood that he will be expected to deliver.
On the NHS in next weeks debate this should be an easy win for Starmer . But he needs to really go after Sunak and not let him try and muddy the waters by blaming covid . Sunak can’t run from 2010 waiting list 2 million and now it’s 7.5 million .
It's not impossible. There has been a lot of demographic change in such constituencies, and getting the core vote onside (and not voting for the WPB) would be a sound canvassing strategy.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
Based on gut feeling? I don't see what sense it makes to pick and choose between polls on that basis.
There is far more scope for the Tories to pick up swing votes than Labour, based on the raw demographics (age, housing tenure, employment status), voter turnout trends and current Reform polling.
Otoh, there is more tactical voting potential and scope for new votes from increased turnout for Labour.
It depends on which of the two packages will be more important over the next 5 weeks. It's the former for me, but not by enough to stop a substantial Lab majority.
Surely they should have learned from the Clegg experience, that the leader needs to be in one of the big offices rather than a token DMP role running nothing?
I don't think it really matters one way or the other. Merkel told Clegg that the smaller party in a two party coalition always gets crushed and she was right. I suppose the inevitable crushing is worth it for a transitory opportunity to sup from the goblet of power.
He should have manufactured a spat and quit the agreement before the end. That would have helped. I think this didn’t happen because both parties hoped to renew the coalition.
It's not impossible. There has been a lot of demographic change in such constituencies, and getting the core vote onside (and not voting for the WPB) would be a sound canvassing strategy.
IDS is fighting to the bitter end in this constituency I assume. I'd put his chances at about zero.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The quadruple lock broke on Monday evening and was heavily covered all day yesterday, so there must be a level of capture. The Tories do lead by two with the over-65s in this one.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
The problem with re-allocating DKs to 2019 is that election should be seen as a unique event . The Tories put together a coalition of voters mainly due to the Get Brexit Done mantra . That no longer exists .
Yes, I can see that. But I just cannot see Labour getting close to a 20 point lead in the actual vote.
Based on gut feeling? I don't see what sense it makes to pick and choose between polls on that basis.
In the event of a hung parliament expect C and S rather than a formal coalition.
I know it didn't work out well for the LibDems last time but I think both sides would rather have a coalition. The government want stability, MPs want proper jobs. Also they have both have the chance to adjust their manifestos to dump some of the things that are popular when you say them and replace them with things that are popular when you do them.
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Most of the cost for renewables is upfront, while for fossil fuels it's the cost of the fuel itself.
So the increase in interest rates has increased the cost of financing renewable energy.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
But most people are responding during the earlier part of the fieldwork.
As usual, it's the direction of travel that's important.
The surprising thing about yesterday's JLP result was the movement towards the Tories when two other polls on the same day went the other way. The movements were all small, and the sample dates didn't align perfecty but there was enough there to conclude no significant shift was taking place. Today's YouGov suggests likewise.
JLP's 12 point poll looks as much of an outlier as YouGov's 30 point lead from early May.
Yougov just came out with a 27 point lead. Along with R&W and Survation yesterday that makes for devastating polling. My jaw.would be hitting the floor if I were in the conservative campaign team.
This is going to get really really ugly for the tories.
We talked about this the other day. The solution is the opposite you put your thumb on the scale to incentivise the likes of STEM. The problem at the moment is every degree is the essentially priced the same, so why run very expensive Chemistry degree when you can run some bollock for 1/3 of the price.
If I remember correctly, Chemistry is a particular degree that is not available at a large number of universities, even some higher ranked ones. It because it is super expensive to run. But of course the UK needs chemists, what they do is highly valuable.
Speaking as a chemistry grad and PhD I have often wondered how many chemists the U.K. actually needs. Certainly the degree is excellent training for a wide range of careers, but actual chemistry jobs? Less than you would think. I consider myself lucky to still be in the game, as it were.
That is quite surprising. I always thought it was under served in the same way as we don't train enough engineers. It appears we are down to about ~50 that run some sort of chemistry course these days.
Much of the old chemical industry has closed down or shifted overseas. The government would need to be serious about recreating or onshoring jobs.
Well absolute bat shit stupid decision from Boris government, after setting up task force into making ourselves less reliant on China for crucial things, they canned it, saying nah we don't really need it. And of course, we know now that China dominants lots of the pre-cursor / base chemical market.
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
To boost our chemical industry we need much cheaper energy. Unfortunately Nut Zero and other government interventions have given us some of the most expensive energy in the world.
We need to scrap it asap.
Err, if the UK had rolled out more solar and offshore wind power (and found a mechanism to protect our energy markets from fossil fuel volatility) we would have some of the cheapest and secure energy supply anywhere in the world.
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
No we wouldn't. There were zero bidders for new offshore wind farms at a guaranteed strike price of £44 per MWH. The Government has had to raise it to £77 (or thereabouts) to get any bidders. That's way above the usual strike price of gas facilities, and comparative with the current elevated price. So if green energy is so cheap, why's it so expensive?
Primarily because of the cost of steel. Which is determined by the cost of energy. Which is influenced by the cost of gas.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
But most people are responding during the earlier part of the fieldwork.
As usual, it's the direction of travel that's important.
The surprising thing about yesterday's JLP result was the movement towards the Tories when two other polls on the same day went the other way. The movements were all small, and the sample dates didn't align perfecty but there was enough there to conclude no significant shift was taking place. Today's YouGov suggests likewise.
JLP's 12 point poll looks as much of an outlier as YouGov's 30 point lead from early May.
The 12 point lead is based on very similar raw findings to other polls. It is a projection based on a poll (and possibly a good projection)
Labour 47 +3 Conservatives 20 -2 Lib Dems 9 nc Reform 12 -2 Green 7 +1 SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
The fieldwork does include yesterday so that’s when the latest bung to pensioners was announced . It’s an awful poll for the Tories especially when Greens are on 7% and Labour often draw from them closer to polling day .
But most people are responding during the earlier part of the fieldwork.
As usual, it's the direction of travel that's important.
The surprising thing about yesterday's JLP result was the movement towards the Tories when two other polls on the same day went the other way. The movements were all small, and the sample dates didn't align perfecty but there was enough there to conclude no significant shift was taking place. Today's YouGov suggests likewise.
JLP's 12 point poll looks as much of an outlier as YouGov's 30 point lead from early May.
But can a necessarily subjective forecast of a final outcome, based on polling, ever be an outlier?
It's not impossible. There has been a lot of demographic change in such constituencies, and getting the core vote onside (and not voting for the WPB) would be a sound canvassing strategy.
IDS is fighting to the bitter end in this constituency I assume. I'd put his chances at about zero.
Given his age and longevity it would be far easier to refuse the fight. I have a level of admiration that he hasn’t, as he must realise the hopelessness of his situation.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/18/lot-more-tory-teachers-than-think-vote-conservative
Rachel Reeves is tiptoeing through the tulips.
We need to map the remaining tulips she has not stood on.
Long pause.
"I got better."
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace (maybe not this one !)
Perseverence of the Saints
And journalists.
"Writer for the Guardian" means "Comment is Free once took 2 pieces from me for which I was not paid." And similar for the rest.
£1 in 1900 is the equivalent of £102.68 today. (How is it possible for inflation to be as bad as that over 124 years?)
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
When I received that information I started to check myself and began my own investigation. I eventually concluded that we were talking about maybe £200 million every year from the UK.
The money coming into Sliven transformed the area. It did so in terms of property, but also people were buying designer clothes, and opening shops, casinos."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/28/bulgarian-town-boomed-from-uks-biggest-benefits-fraud/
It's a good observation. A graduate tax based on student debt serves to entrench wealth inequality despite being superficially progressive.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/12_december/19/newsnight_ids_cv.shtml
(Some of this appears to be correlation rather than causation, but still, it's food for thought).
We don't want that, of course, but it might be time to have all recipients of welfare check in in person once a year, say.
"Tories cut gap with Labour to 12 points: Rishi Sunak makes shock recovery from gaffe ridden opening days to surge up polls - as Keir Starmer faces new party meltdown over Diane Abbott debacle"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
If understand the first graphic in that article, the United Kingdom will soon have fewer pupils in your elementary schools. (Here in the Seattle area, a similar demographic pattern is already leading to the closing of elementary schools, even in places where the population is growing.)
(I don't know enough about your school systems to guess what might be the consequences. but do fear that you, like we, might soon be facing some painful choices.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Sunak could pass those standards, easily.
Why should someone be on a 9% higher tax rate than someone else of the exact same income, simply because they worked hard at getting an education?
The system should be scrapped. Everyone who earns the same income should pay the same rate of tax.
https://x.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1795601856900849865
And that's how we got that moron Peston going well I don't understand, I am an amateur scientist, we could just make these base chemicals for COVID tests. And JVT had to say to him, not on the mega scale required you can't.
Where as in Europe, many more young people continue to live at home during their university studies. In fact, its really only the elite (in terms of grades) that move a long way from home to university in some countries.
There of course advantages to moving out of home, but the nowadays the cost of student rents etc are very high. Its very expensive thing to do, and if you find it isn't for you, you picked the wrong course, you have just racked up £15-20k debt in one year.
My general point is university degrees for the majority of this very rigid, you do 3-4 years fulltime living away from home. More flexibility in the system doesn't seem like a bad idea.
What do others think about the Diane Abbott row?
He was an unbearable narcissist as I recall. Only ramped polls when they were better for the Tories. Otherwise stayed quiet, which in and of itself told its own story.
Opinion polls suggest the African National Congress could lose its parliamentary majority after 30 years in government."
https://news.sky.com/story/south-africans-vote-in-most-competitive-election-since-end-of-apartheid-13144794
JLP/@RestIsPolitics 🇬🇧 election poll, 24th-25th May 2024
Women: 🔴 Labour ahead by 27 points
Men: 🔴 Labour ahead by 10 points
Tables: jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
Podcast: linktr.ee/RestIsPolitics
https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1795547177948684435?t=m0Fv7dJMqeFbhKlbbMuQJg&s=19
The raw figure is a Lab lead much like the other posters. The Lab lead is increasing amongst Women, who make up the majority of DKs.
BYD unveils a new hybrid powertrain that’s capable of allowing a car to travel more than 2,000 kilometers without recharging or refueling..
https://x.com/pstAsiatech/status/1795630211729662360
Trump was welcome to use an advice of counsel defense if he agreed to the legal terms, specifically that you have to waive attorney client privilege & likely testify. Trump refused to waive privilege because the DA would get ALL attorney client communications, and we know he’s too chicken to testify.
https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795650935693480352
He simply doesn't believe the law should apply to him.
(I do wonder about him being on his own on that train though, let’s hope for his sake he hasn’t sent aides ahead of him with red boxes on the government “Private Jet”).
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-extends-lead-over-tories-in-exclusive-poll-for-sky-news-13144620
Labour 47 +3
Conservatives 20 -2
Lib Dems 9 nc
Reform 12 -2
Green 7 +1
SNP 3 nc
That's a +4 for the left, -4 for the right. Fieldwork Monday and Tuesday. That captures National Service, but not the Quadruple lock.
I’m wondering whether tax avoidance is going to do more heavy lifting with recouping money due to fraud during the pandemic joining the party!
Labour to be a minority government that needs him? Possible, if it is 38% Labour, 33% Cons.
In particular they have to show debt falling as a % of GDP in year 5. Recouping money from pandemic fraud in year 1 or year 2 doesn't contribute anything to that - other than the absolutely miniscule interest saving on a marginally lower stock of debt.
The judge then has an interesting issue - does he jail Trump?
We need to scrap it asap.
For me, the JLP poll looks much more realistic than any of the ones showing 20+ leads. But they get to a 12 point Labour lead by making a lot of assumptions that favour the Tories - reallocation of DKs to 2019 choice and likelihood to vote, for example. I think they're right to do so but it is an extrapolation of the data.
They're going to be as boring as possible, try to avoid offering any eye-catching commitments that the Tories can spin as a threat to the all-important grey vote, and stick mainly to criticising the Government for being bonkers and desperate. It's clearly what they think is most likely to get them to a majority, and they may well be proven right.
The prosecutor made some good points as in if Cohen was a liar why didn’t he go further in saying Trump told him of the Stormy Daniels affair . But the closing argument was far too long .
https://x.com/faizashaheen/status/1795117649610838300?s=61
The marginal cost of green energy, once installed, is so low it's causing economists some headaches. The models dinnae work!
Helm's Deep. The rest of Rohan can burn.
That might just get people thinking with the latest cause celebre.
If voters are mostly thinking about the chaos of the Liz Truss ministry, and ensuring that the Tories don't do it again, then we'll see a 20-point Labour lead in the actual vote.
If voters end up worrying that Labour are a bit shifty, and not being entirely honest about their plans for government, then the lead could easily be reduced to single figures.
*England only, I think. The other nations being devolved, but presumably getting similar investment.
Caution reigns in Starmers world, probably because unlike Sunaks random policy generator there is a likelihood that he will be expected to deliver.
It’s obviously the issue she wants to be number one on the doorstep. I’m sure it comes up and her appearance on the doorstep might prompt the conversation to head there quickly. When I was a teenager doing canvassing folk would often refer to youth disorder and how nice to have a young person not running amok. Had it been an issue I was bothered by I could easily through confirmation bias plus the prompting effect have decided it had more salience than it did. I’m sure I did succumb to such ideas on issues that I was interested in.
Otoh, there is more tactical voting potential and scope for new votes from increased turnout for Labour.
It depends on which of the two packages will be more important over the next 5 weeks. It's the former for me, but not by enough to stop a substantial Lab majority.
So the increase in interest rates has increased the cost of financing renewable energy.
The surprising thing about yesterday's JLP result was the movement towards the Tories when two other polls on the same day went the other way. The movements were all small, and the sample dates didn't align perfecty but there was enough there to conclude no significant shift was taking place. Today's YouGov suggests likewise.
JLP's 12 point poll looks as much of an outlier as YouGov's 30 point lead from early May.
This is going to get really really ugly for the tories.
See? The harder and faster we go, the cheaper it gets. And the less chance of us getting caught out by Putin's warmongering in the future.
The really interesting bit is that more solar capacity was bought in the last renewables round than was for all renewables in the first one. Incredible progress.