The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
This is the problem with Sunak lying on national television. He got the immediate sugar rush of the stumbling Starmer response and this morning's adulatory Tory press headlines. Now he gets four weeks of the actual truth being shoved in his face. On balance, it's not a plus.
I was saying during the debate that he came away from the Truss debate thinking he had won and it rapidly unravelled. Watch this do the same. Getting caught repeating a lie 25 times won't help, as he'll now have to defend the lie and already looks shifty.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
The presentation itself is also a lie it's not £2000 a year it's £2000 during the next 4 years...
The more Labour bang on about their tax bombshell the more they look shifty and drum it in to the electorates mind.
It will chime with people who, like you, are anti-Labour. The Tory problem is that most people are not like you!
Well hardly as surprise I dont like Labour
However Mrs B who is a wibbly wobbly cant make up her mind type ( and votes across the spectrum ) was asking questions about what this will mean for her pension. So there was a bit of chiming going on.
On the other hand rich Labourites like yourself are no more in tune with "most people" than Starmer so the jury is still out on this one.
The politics of envy.
But putting that to one side, all the polling seems to indicate that a lot more people are better disposed to Labour than to the Tories, so I may be more in tune with most people than a dual national member of the Midlands managerial class!
Us horny handed men of toil keep you chatterati in your villas by the sea.
On your point however the polling indicates voters are not well disposed to the Tories full stop. Labour are sort of meh but will be the chief beneficiaries from the Tories unpopularity.
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
In which case, I shall tell you to fuck off. And when you have fucked off, fuck off some more.
Charming!
Did you read Cyclefree’s thread, or should she fuck off too?
What is your experience of sexism against women that puts you in a position to explain to a women that her views are “silly”?
This is a site where we discuss politics. You posted something I disagreed with, and I posted a response.
You did not argue with my response; and instead just said 'mansplaining', which I don't think I was.
It does, however, sound as though you are trying to silence any pro-trans voice. Since the majority of them on here are male, you can just shout 'mansplaining!' at them.
You also put 'silly woman' in quotes, which I did not say. I said it was a 'rather silly thing to say'. There's a rather large difference between saying someone said something silly, and calling them a 'silly woman'.
You therefore misquoted and misrepresented me.
You either misunderstood or misinterpreted the original post which was about left wing men’s reaction to women’s request to have the current ambiguity in the Equality Act clarified - dismissing it as trivial compared to other issues women face. Which was the point of the original post. I would recommend Cyclefree’s thread when you have a moment - as you point out there are few women on this group - ever wondered why?
Interesting views from Dehenna Davison Tory MP and Mhairi Black from the SNP. Two of the youngest female MPs in Parliamernt. Both were of a single mind and both thought it was an age issue.
I wonder if Dehenna Davison could accurately describe what the impact of the Equality Act amendment in question would be. The fact she conflates clarifying the law on sex as a PC to protect single-sex spaces with being anti equal marriage suggests she might not be able to.
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
You’re right to be optimistic. So many sudden advances are being made as technology gets to grips with priorly intractable medical problems - from cancer to dementia to obesity to basic ageing
In ten years we could add twenty HEALTHY years to the average life
That would undoubtedly be a great thing in many ways - assuming people realised it couldn't all be added onto their retirement. Would rather delay the predictions of global population starting to decline.
We are on the precipice of multiple transformations, which will render much of our political debate trivial if not ridiculous
No, they'll just change the terms of the debate.
And in any event much of our political debate over the last four decades has been ridiculous. It's almost completely ignored, for example, the structural problems set up by Thatcher's period in government (and perpetuated under Blair/Brown).
No, the entire debate is going to change, the world will not be recognisable
There are some generational geopol challenges with a realistic chance of crystallising in the next parliament. US abandonment of nato and Russian test of Article V, use of a nuke in Ukraine, Chinese blockade / annexation of Taiwan. Then in part associated with these, there’s the risk of a proper collapse in the market for US Treasuries and loss of USD as global reserve currency.
But these are trivial in the context of AGI and formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth. The latter being more likely pre-2029 but both probably >50% chance in the next parliament. And then there’s there’s the chance for a tangible advance in age extension tech, only an outside bet for this parliament but presumably won’t lag AGI by too much.
Our political debate is tiresome, trivial and pointless in the context of all this and hardly anyone seems to grasp this.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
In other (TTRPG) news, there's an interesting-looking new system called DC20 that's just launched its Kickstarter and is already very funded. Seems to be a mix of 5e and PF2, with a slimmed down approach in many areas and interesting attempt to avoid dump stats, from the little I've seen so far. Getting lots of praise from big name YouTube channels.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
The presentation itself is also a lie it's not £2000 a year it's £2000 during the next 4 years...
The more Labour bang on about their tax bombshell the more they look shifty and drum it in to the electorates mind.
It will chime with people who, like you, are anti-Labour. The Tory problem is that most people are not like you!
Well hardly as surprise I dont like Labour
However Mrs B who is a wibbly wobbly cant make up her mind type ( and votes across the spectrum ) was asking questions about what this will mean for her pension. So there was a bit of chiming going on.
On the other hand rich Labourites like yourself are no more in tune with "most people" than Starmer so the jury is still out on this one.
The politics of envy.
But putting that to one side, all the polling seems to indicate that a lot more people are better disposed to Labour than to the Tories, so I may be more in tune with most people than a dual national member of the Midlands managerial class!
Us horny handed men of toil keep you chatterati in your villas by the sea.
On your point however the polling indicates voters are not well disposed to the Tories full stop. Labour are sort of meh but will be the chief beneficiaries from the Tories unpopularity.
I do not live in a villa by the sea. It is a semi-detached regency townhouse and the beach is five minutes away ;-)
NEW: @JLPartnersPolls shows win for Starmer last night - but Sunak geeing up the base....
PM's "aggression" paid off however with the 2019 coalition.. as worm shows National Service, tax and immigration winning back wobbly blues...
That's some heroic spin!
I don't think so - last nights poll showed Sunak winning by 85% with 2019 conservative voters and this poll by another organisation seems to confirm it
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
In which case, I shall tell you to fuck off. And when you have fucked off, fuck off some more.
Charming!
Did you read Cyclefree’s thread, or should she fuck off too?
What is your experience of sexism against women that puts you in a position to explain to a women that her views are “silly”?
This is a site where we discuss politics. You posted something I disagreed with, and I posted a response.
You did not argue with my response; and instead just said 'mansplaining', which I don't think I was.
It does, however, sound as though you are trying to silence any pro-trans voice. Since the majority of them on here are male, you can just shout 'mansplaining!' at them.
You also put 'silly woman' in quotes, which I did not say. I said it was a 'rather silly thing to say'. There's a rather large difference between saying someone said something silly, and calling them a 'silly woman'.
You therefore misquoted and misrepresented me.
You either misunderstood or misinterpreted the original post which was about left wing men’s reaction to women’s request to have the current ambiguity in the Equality Act clarified - dismissing it as trivial compared to other issues women face. Which was the point of the original post. I would recommend Cyclefree’s thread when you have a moment - as you point out there are few women on this group - ever wondered why?
Interesting views from Dehenna Davison Tory MP and Mhairi Black from the SNP. Two of the youngest female MPs in Parliamernt. Both were of a single mind and both thought it was an age issue.
It is very much an age issue, but not entirely. Mrs Foxy is fine with Trans rights too.
There obviously is a body of feminist thought that is very sceptical of the Trans rights agenda, but feminists are not of one voice on this, and much of the anti Trans agenda comes from older men, so a strange alliance.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
The presentation itself is also a lie it's not £2000 a year it's £2000 during the next 4 years...
The more Labour bang on about their tax bombshell the more they look shifty and drum it in to the electorates mind.
It will chime with people who, like you, are anti-Labour. The Tory problem is that most people are not like you!
Well hardly as surprise I dont like Labour
However Mrs B who is a wibbly wobbly cant make up her mind type ( and votes across the spectrum ) was asking questions about what this will mean for her pension. So there was a bit of chiming going on.
On the other hand rich Labourites like yourself are no more in tune with "most people" than Starmer so the jury is still out on this one.
The politics of envy.
But putting that to one side, all the polling seems to indicate that a lot more people are better disposed to Labour than to the Tories, so I may be more in tune with most people than a dual national member of the Midlands managerial class!
Us horny handed men of toil keep you chatterati in your villas by the sea.
On your point however the polling indicates voters are not well disposed to the Tories full stop. Labour are sort of meh but will be the chief beneficiaries from the Tories unpopularity.
I do not live in a villa by the sea. It is a semi-detached regency townhouse and the beach is five minutes away ;-)
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
This is the problem with Sunak lying on national television. He got the immediate sugar rush of the stumbling Starmer response and this morning's adulatory Tory press headlines. Now he gets four weeks of the actual truth being shoved in his face. On balance, it's not a plus.
I was saying during the debate that he came away from the Truss debate thinking he had won and it rapidly unravelled. Watch this do the same. Getting caught repeating a lie 25 times won't help, as he'll now have to defend the lie and already looks shifty.
Yes, by lying and getting so quickly caught out the story is developing not necessarily in Sunak's favour. It just reinforces all the negatives so many voters have about Tory dishonesty.
I think this debate may need to be seen in the context of Friday’s debate once that has happened.
Now that Sunak and Starmer have defined it on the lines of immigration, tax etc, I do wonder if this favours Farage’s return. Particularly if some defections are lined up for Friday. “Why have Diet Coke when you can have Full Fat?”
Sunak’s decent performance however may stave off some defectors.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great, but for others it was terrible. The point being that it’s perfectly reasonable for other people not to trust it. Just because you pay for it, doesn’t make it good.
What I saw was speed, private rooms, coffee machines, big tvs and life threatening infections.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
I agree with your last point. We are not going to be fighting USA, France or even China. For our prospective threats we don't need particularly state of the art kit, but rather reliable kit that is standardised enough to be produced in quantity. An aircraft carrier that struggles to leave the Solent is not a great investment.
A bit like covid though, that requires domestic manufacturing capacity, to not be subject to international whims.
They should definitely be trying to sell the aircraft carriers to India or anywhere who thinks they need them.
That's not really an option because they are both fairly shagged out. India have committed to Rafale/STOBAR. South Korea are building their own and are unlikely to be impressed by the state of the British shipbuilding art. Australia might have been a remote option if they get a sufficiently loony right wing government but AUKUS is rapidly hollowing out their naval budget,
Would India refuse a BOGOF deal? Look I’m desperate, I really need to sell these carriers. Maybe tell them, “well we’ve got the guys from Pakistan coming round to have a look later, so don’t miss out.”
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
The presentation itself is also a lie it's not £2000 a year it's £2000 during the next 4 years...
The more Labour bang on about their tax bombshell the more they look shifty and drum it in to the electorates mind.
It will chime with people who, like you, are anti-Labour. The Tory problem is that most people are not like you!
Well hardly as surprise I dont like Labour
However Mrs B who is a wibbly wobbly cant make up her mind type ( and votes across the spectrum ) was asking questions about what this will mean for her pension. So there was a bit of chiming going on.
On the other hand rich Labourites like yourself are no more in tune with "most people" than Starmer so the jury is still out on this one.
The politics of envy.
But putting that to one side, all the polling seems to indicate that a lot more people are better disposed to Labour than to the Tories, so I may be more in tune with most people than a dual national member of the Midlands managerial class!
Us horny handed men of toil keep you chatterati in your villas by the sea.
On your point however the polling indicates voters are not well disposed to the Tories full stop. Labour are sort of meh but will be the chief beneficiaries from the Tories unpopularity.
I do not live in a villa by the sea. It is a semi-detached regency townhouse and the beach is five minutes away ;-)
Best of luck then
Sounds like Norfolk, in which case the beach will be getting a little nearer each year.
The “toolmaker” story is contested. To some on the left his father was “Factory Owner of the Oxted Tool Company” - we simply don’t know as Companies House has no records. He may have been “owner” or “sole trader” - but if SKS wants to introduce this, he should expect scrutiny.
'Factory Owner of the OTS' is a suspiciously unbalanced expression. It could be an old garage or railway arch especially in the old days before the Thatcher years wrecked the metalbashing industries of the urban peripheries. And the fact that the name does not come up in Grace's Guide suggests that the business was either very small or non-existent.
I didn't watch the debate, but as Tory, and not seeing anything in print about Starmer making a mistake, it has to be a win for Starmer. Major was as dull as ditchwater....
He was certainly focused on not making a mistake and emphasising 14 wasted years. He knows he's got this. But May knew she had it too when she tried to make an entire campaign out of strong and stable. People get both bored and disenchanted with that form of campaigning.
They don't just get bored and disenchanted when a PM who had previously promised not to call an election, and then goes ahead and calls an unnecessary GE despite a small majority simple based on the polls at the time.. Well that came back to bite Teresa May on the behookie. And despite the polls, Keir Starmer and Labour have not got this in the bag because they have failed to tell us how they will do things differently and how they will fund it. Scrutiny of Labours blank taxation manifesto policy vacum is Reforms worst nightmare.
They have it in the bag because voters want rid of this Tory Party at all costs. Picture a pneumatic drill outside your front door. No one cares what is involved or how much it might cost just as long as someone guarantees to get rid of it
It's just you dont want it replaced by a pile diver thumping away to install next door's ground heat pump.
That's shocking. i've just had a neighbour explaining to me why we should have a heat pump and to seem interested I foolishly asked what one was.............
Good line from @Scarlett__Mag on how the public aren’t listening to Sunak:
“It’s a bit like getting a call from your ex boyfriend. You’ve had enough of them. You don’t want to hear their brilliant plan of why it’s all actually a really great idea for you to get back together.”
On reflection, perhaps Starmer’s decision to let the Tory lie run for a news cycle was genius. What was left of Sunak’s (ill-deserved) reputation for honesty now in tatters…
NEW: @JLPartnersPolls shows win for Starmer last night - but Sunak geeing up the base....
PM's "aggression" paid off however with the 2019 coalition.. as worm shows National Service, tax and immigration winning back wobbly blues...
That's some heroic spin!
I don't think so - last nights poll showed Sunak winning by 85% with 2019 conservative voters and this poll by another organisation seems to confirm it
That's 2019 Conservatives who watched the debate, not all 2019 Conservative voters. There is a very big difference.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
And emergency care is great once you are past the initial triage / queue in A&E as I found out last week and I suspect TSE discovered yesterday.
In fact the only problem we've encountered is a lack of district nurses which means we are currently visiting the hospital daily for wound dressing because district nurses are too busy and Clinical Decisions don't get many referrals from GPs until late morning so there is capacity between 9-10 to do some quick followups.
One of the questions facing the next government is going to be what the cheap wins are- the things that are unglamorous (not new hospitals), fairly cheap, but ungum the sticking points in the system. Because there clearly are some.
And on tax bombshellgate... one of the tactics Starmer used with the Corbynites was giving them just enough rope to hang themselves. Not always pretty, and it doesn't always work. But one of the marks of a good chess player is that, if they lose a pawn by a blunder, they manage to get compensation for that.
Yes, there are some. Case in point, my mum is being discharged from hospital today (yay!) after a prolonged stay. During this stay, she was referred to another department in the same hospital for a different issue and was given an outpatient appointment. Transport was arranged, to be cancelled if she was still in hospital (the outpatient dept in that case would send someone up to her ward). Ward she was on were also appraised of the situation and appointment.
But, the outpatient appointment is today. So she's presently, if all has gone to plan, on a half hour ambulance/patient transport ride back home after discharge from the ward. At around 3.30pm another ambulance/patient transport will come to fetch her back to the same hospital for her outpatient appointment and then, after that, bring her home again. My dad and brother were happy to sit with her somewhere at the hospital all day waiting for the appointment if the ward she was on needed her out on time for the bed etc, but they were insistent that they wouldn't change the transport booking. So, one journey becomes three, costs more and substantially worse for my mum.
That is a sad overnight straw clutching effort considering todays frontpages and the media narrative..
The media narrative written before the debate? That media narrative? The media narrative only in Tory newspapers speaking to the remaining Tory voters?
How is one poll saying Sunak won definitive and narrative-creating and another poll saying Starmer won "sad" and "straw-clutching?
A poll is a poll is a poll.
BTW - WELCOME BACK! Genuinely, great to see you back posting!
What really will matter is this weekend's polls. By then any effect of the debate will have filtered into the system.
Good line from @Scarlett__Mag on how the public aren’t listening to Sunak:
“It’s a bit like getting a call from your ex boyfriend. You’ve had enough of them. You don’t want to hear their brilliant plan of why it’s all actually a really great idea for you to get back together.”
It wont change the election outcome Starmer will still be PM it may change the size of his majority. For the record I wont be voting for Starmer or Sunak there are only presentational differences between them. Nothing major on policy.
To Rochdale Pioneers. I agree with what you say about Starmer. He is wooden and looked confused when he was taken to task by Sunak.I dread this man becoming PM. There is no passion. A fridge turned off. The Artful dodger. He avoids answering questions. No charisma. He appears indifferent and unemotional . A real turnoff.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Whilst I tend to think that defence spending should rise, I don’t think the absolute level of spending is the entire ball game. How you spend money is just as important as how much money you spend. A genuine strategic defence and security review, not a mislabelled cost cutting exercise, should be conducted. It is clear the risks and threats to peace and security are growing not shrinking and look likely to be persistent over the medium term horizon and that requires a robust response and a retuning of posture.
Indeed. Drones, as DavidL says, are revolutionary, but part of the reason they are revolutionary is that they're cheap. It's not just about spending more money, it's about how we spend it. We have allies, in Ukraine and in fellow NATO member Turkey, who are experts now in drone warfare. We can learn from them.
NEW: @JLPartnersPolls shows win for Starmer last night - but Sunak geeing up the base....
PM's "aggression" paid off however with the 2019 coalition.. as worm shows National Service, tax and immigration winning back wobbly blues...
That's some heroic spin!
I don't think so - last nights poll showed Sunak winning by 85% with 2019 conservative voters and this poll by another organisation seems to confirm it
That's 2019 Conservatives who watched the debate, not all 2019 Conservative voters. There is a very big difference.
I wonder how many of their polling sample even watched it. In fact, do we have a number for how many watched it? I think this polling reflects the current polling where Starmer is streets ahead. I don't agree with their conclusion on the debate but actually this result is more significant. Starmer remains comfortably ahead in the public's perception.
Who won the debate polling filters out only those who (sat they) watched the debate.
It’s going to be £2,000 non stop between now and the election. This is the new 350m a week.
“Signed off by the Treasury perm sec” apparently - so the civil service are supporting the Tory campaign.
BBC reports:
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the Conservatives’ assessment of their tax plans "should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service".
The letter from James Bowler, the Treasury permanent secretary, risks undermining Rishi Sunak’s claim in last night’s debate that Labour’s plans include £38bn of uncosted spending, which he says would mean £2,000 of tax rises per working household.
In a letter to Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Bowler writes: "As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document 'Labour’s Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used ... the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party’s publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service".
"I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service," he adds.
For context: Last night, Sunak repeatedly claimed that Labour's spending plans would result in a £2,000 tax rise for Britons - saying "independent Treasury officials have costed Labour's policies and they amount to a £2,000 tax rise for every working family".
That is a sad overnight straw clutching effort considering todays frontpages and the media narrative..
The media narrative written before the debate? That media narrative? The media narrative only in Tory newspapers speaking to the remaining Tory voters?
How is one poll saying Sunak won definitive and narrative-creating and another poll saying Starmer won "sad" and "straw-clutching?
A poll is a poll is a poll.
BTW - WELCOME BACK! Genuinely, great to see you back posting!
What really will matter is this weekend's polls. By then any effect of the debate will have filtered into the system.
What really matters is the poll on the 4th July which Starmer will win though the margin remains the debate
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It’s the Brexit Bus all over again.
“It’s not £2,000!”
“How much is it then?”
The problem for Labour is the perception that they are tax raisers - even if they’re not really much different from the Tories.
Talk about how much Tories have raised taxes through fiscal drag…
Starmer should have shut it down immediately, I grant you. But the implication of your post is that politicians should just make up and old shit about their opponents and keep repeating it. I’d prefer they based their debating points in fact. You?
Sporting has just edged out its spread on Con seats to 126/134.
Any polls expected today? We have had rather a glut, but the next lot should be post-Farage, and therefore quite informative.
Was speaking to a friend yesterday - doesn't like the Tories, doesn't like Starmer, doesn't like immigration and voted for Brexit. In that sense he sounds like an ideal Reform supporter, but he doesn't like Farage either after his fawning over Trump. So it'll be interesting to see whether Nige is the still the force the media make him out to be, or is even his somewhat niche brand becoming stale.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
To Rochdale Pioneers. I agree with what you say about Starmer. He is wooden and looked confused when he was taken to task by Sunak.I dread this man becoming PM. There is no passion. A fridge turned off. The Artful dodger. He avoids answering questions. No charisma. He appears indifferent and unemotional . A real turnoff.
I can just see him negotiating with Macron who is quite fast on his feet . By the time Starmer has thought of his answer Macron will be holding a press conference saying the UK has agreed to all his demands.
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It’s the Brexit Bus all over again.
“It’s not £2,000!”
“How much is it then?”
The problem for Labour is the perception that they are tax raisers - even if they’re not really much different from the Tories.
Talk about how much Tories have raised taxes through fiscal drag…
Starmer should have shut it down immediately, I grant you. But the implication of your post is that politicians should just make up and old shit about their opponents and keep repeating it. I’d prefer they based their debating points in fact. You?
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
I agree with your last point. We are not going to be fighting USA, France or even China. For our prospective threats we don't need particularly state of the art kit, but rather reliable kit that is standardised enough to be produced in quantity. An aircraft carrier that struggles to leave the Solent is not a great investment.
A bit like covid though, that requires domestic manufacturing capacity, to not be subject to international whims.
They should definitely be trying to sell the aircraft carriers to India or anywhere who thinks they need them.
That's not really an option because they are both fairly shagged out. India have committed to Rafale/STOBAR. South Korea are building their own and are unlikely to be impressed by the state of the British shipbuilding art. Australia might have been a remote option if they get a sufficiently loony right wing government but AUKUS is rapidly hollowing out their naval budget,
Offer them to the new European navy ? (For nothing.)
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
3 reasons Bowler letter is a hammer-blow for Sunak. Totally undermines all Tory tax attacks. The £2,000 figure was a personal line used by Sunak, so now goes to his own character. And it allows Labour to paint any attack on them from here to polling-day as "another Tory lie".
The “toolmaker” story is contested. To some on the left his father was “Factory Owner of the Oxted Tool Company” - we simply don’t know as Companies House has no records. He may have been “owner” or “sole trader” - but if SKS wants to introduce this, he should expect scrutiny.
'Factory Owner of the OTS' is a suspiciously unbalanced expression. It could be an old garage or railway arch especially in the old days before the Thatcher years wrecked the metalbashing industries of the urban peripheries. And the fact that the name does not come up in Grace's Guide suggests that the business was either very small or non-existent.
I look forward to the election season 2039 when the inspiring young leader of Reform, set for a landslide according to the polls, repeatedly references her father's humble working class roots as a flint knapper - indeed one who was forced to increasingly moonlight as a war correspondent to make ends meet thanks to Labour increasing the VAT on stone-based sex aids.
Sporting has just edged out its spread on Con seats to 126/134.
Any polls expected today? We have had rather a glut, but the next lot should be post-Farage, and therefore quite informative.
Was speaking to a friend yesterday - doesn't like the Tories, doesn't like Starmer, doesn't like immigration and voted for Brexit. In that sense he sounds like an ideal Reform supporter, but he doesn't like Farage either after his fawning over Trump. So it'll be interesting to see whether Nige is the still the force the media make him out to be, or is even his somewhat niche brand becoming stale.
Wasn't just Trump but now moving onto anti vax and denying net zero
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
You’re right to be optimistic. So many sudden advances are being made as technology gets to grips with priorly intractable medical problems - from cancer to dementia to obesity to basic ageing
In ten years we could add twenty HEALTHY years to the average life
That would undoubtedly be a great thing in many ways - assuming people realised it couldn't all be added onto their retirement. Would rather delay the predictions of global population starting to decline.
We are on the precipice of multiple transformations, which will render much of our political debate trivial if not ridiculous
No, they'll just change the terms of the debate.
And in any event much of our political debate over the last four decades has been ridiculous. It's almost completely ignored, for example, the structural problems set up by Thatcher's period in government (and perpetuated under Blair/Brown).
No, the entire debate is going to change, the world will not be recognisable
There are some generational geopol challenges with a realistic chance of crystallising in the next parliament. US abandonment of nato and Russian test of Article V, use of a nuke in Ukraine, Chinese blockade / annexation of Taiwan. Then in part associated with these, there’s the risk of a proper collapse in the market for US Treasuries and loss of USD as global reserve currency.
But these are trivial in the context of AGI and formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth. The latter being more likely pre-2029 but both probably >50% chance in the next parliament. And then there’s there’s the chance for a tangible advance in age extension tech, only an outside bet for this parliament but presumably won’t lag AGI by too much.
Our political debate is tiresome, trivial and pointless in the context of all this and hardly anyone seems to grasp this.
When you say "formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth", can I check... you mean UFOs?
No, UFOs are not going to be the big story of the next parliament.
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It's not the same.
In 2016 the debate was about the size of the number.
Today, the story is that the number was a lie, Richi knew it was a lie, he was warned not to use the lie, he lied anyway, he's a liar.
Politcian calls other politician a liar the public will just roll their eyes.
But it's pretty much the BBC and the Treasury Permanent Secretary calling Sunak a liar.
So when will they clarify what the number will be ? How much is Starmer going to raise taxes ? £2000 looks light given all the houses, NHS pay rises and electricity capacity he has announced.
NEW: @JLPartnersPolls shows win for Starmer last night - but Sunak geeing up the base....
PM's "aggression" paid off however with the 2019 coalition.. as worm shows National Service, tax and immigration winning back wobbly blues...
That's some heroic spin!
I don't think so - last nights poll showed Sunak winning by 85% with 2019 conservative voters and this poll by another organisation seems to confirm it
That's 2019 Conservatives who watched the debate, not all 2019 Conservative voters. There is a very big difference.
It is the narrative though
It's something that the Tories are consoling themselves with. There's a bit difference between that and a wider narrative.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It's not the same.
In 2016 the debate was about the size of the number.
Today, the story is that the number was a lie, Richi knew it was a lie, he was warned not to use the lie, he lied anyway, he's a liar.
You're missing the big picture. The whole debate is now about whether and by how much Lab will raise taxes.
This is the £350m all over again and you're not seeing it.
Not sure. Maybe.
The 350m was powerful because it had some truth in it... the counter riposte of... oh its 280m actually is weak. And it was clear to the public that leaving EU would mean no more membership fees.
By contrast, Starmer can look into the camera and say we aren't raising your taxes, the Tories have 26 times.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I have sympathy for her - but your Aunt is at fault here. The cyclist had a green light and right of way. She was turning across the traffic and should ensure that it was clear before proceeding. Whilst the bus driver wasn't helpful (to put it mildly), his indication was simply that he wasn't going anywhere and she was free to cross in front of him. She should have moved such that she was in front of the bus, and edging out into the potential cyclists path until she could see that the full width of the road was clear to cross.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Whilst I tend to think that defence spending should rise, I don’t think the absolute level of spending is the entire ball game. How you spend money is just as important as how much money you spend. A genuine strategic defence and security review, not a mislabelled cost cutting exercise, should be conducted. It is clear the risks and threats to peace and security are growing not shrinking and look likely to be persistent over the medium term horizon and that requires a robust response and a retuning of posture.
Indeed. Drones, as DavidL says, are revolutionary, but part of the reason they are revolutionary is that they're cheap. It's not just about spending more money, it's about how we spend it. We have allies, in Ukraine and in fellow NATO member Turkey, who are experts now in drone warfare. We can learn from them.
By the end of this, we’ll be getting trained by the Ukrainians, rather than the other way around.
3 reasons Bowler letter is a hammer-blow for Sunak. Totally undermines all Tory tax attacks. The £2,000 figure was a personal line used by Sunak, so now goes to his own character. And it allows Labour to paint any attack on them from here to polling-day as "another Tory lie".
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated (solid white line) cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It's not the same.
In 2016 the debate was about the size of the number.
Today, the story is that the number was a lie, Richi knew it was a lie, he was warned not to use the lie, he lied anyway, he's a liar.
You're missing the big picture. The whole debate is now about whether and by how much Lab will raise taxes.
This is the £350m all over again and you're not seeing it.
This is what I'm seeing.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
Though, of course, civil servants were used to do the calculations.
All round evidence of bad faith, IMO.
In any event, anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise that the country's financial problems aren't going to change with a change of government. The question is rather who is likely to make incremental improvements, rather than the opposite.
On the evidence of the last decade, that's not the Tories. There's an outside chance that it might be Labour.
Regarding "£350m all over again", fool me once, etc. Brexit failed as a practical project to improve the country (or the NHS). Everyone knows that, and that's what they'll remember.
Claire Coutinho did a good job on Today just now. Kept repeating the £2,000 line and actually made a reasonable fist of answering the “what are you proud of in the last 14 years”.
They briefly have their mojo back. Labour needs to find a similar £ accusation that the Tories struggle to rebut.
On a recent The Rest is Politics, they discussed briefing the line to take and Rory mentioned hearing Priti Patel once use the same 7-word phrase seven times during a two and a half minute interview.
Rishi seemed last night to have been over-briefed, and was determined to get in his lines regardless of context, which is why, especially at the start, he seemed to be shouting nonsense over the moderator.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It's not the same.
In 2016 the debate was about the size of the number.
Today, the story is that the number was a lie, Richi knew it was a lie, he was warned not to use the lie, he lied anyway, he's a liar.
You're missing the big picture. The whole debate is now about whether and by how much Lab will raise taxes.
This is the £350m all over again and you're not seeing it.
Not sure. Maybe.
The 350m was powerful because it had some truth in it... the counter riposte of... oh its 280m actually is weak. And it was clear to the public that leaving EU would mean no more membership fees.
By contrast, Starmer can look into the camera and say we aren't raising your taxes, the Tories have 26 times.
Well he can but we all know taxes are going up if no-one is cutting spending. And Labour dont cut spending,
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
We’ll never be in a position to give everyone an urgent scan. That’s the problem.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
It’s going to be £2,000 non stop between now and the election. This is the new 350m a week.
“Signed off by the Treasury perm sec” apparently - so the civil service are supporting the Tory campaign.
BBC reports:
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the Conservatives’ assessment of their tax plans "should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service".
The letter from James Bowler, the Treasury permanent secretary, risks undermining Rishi Sunak’s claim in last night’s debate that Labour’s plans include £38bn of uncosted spending, which he says would mean £2,000 of tax rises per working household.
In a letter to Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Bowler writes: "As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document 'Labour’s Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used ... the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party’s publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service".
"I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service," he adds.
For context: Last night, Sunak repeatedly claimed that Labour's spending plans would result in a £2,000 tax rise for Britons - saying "independent Treasury officials have costed Labour's policies and they amount to a £2,000 tax rise for every working family".
Well they were, as noted in "includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service" involved in the production of the figures, as Tory SPADs presented the civil service with scenarios, and made them produce costings. They then cobbled together the BS £2k figure, in part using those costings.
Also, this is more difficult for Labour because we all know there's a very high chance they'll form the next government. So the question is relevant. Conservative cuts in the future are rather less so. The luxury of impending opposition.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I have sympathy for her - but your Aunt is at fault here. The cyclist had a green light and right of way. She was turning across the traffic and should ensure that it was clear before proceeding. Whilst the bus driver wasn't helpful (to put it mildly), his indication was simply that he wasn't going anywhere and she was free to cross in front of him. She should have moved such that she was in front of the bus, and edging out into the potential cyclists path until she could see that the full width of the road was clear to cross.
Excellent thanks - and the speed was not a factor?
Opposition policy costing – National Warm Homes Plan – Labour
This would be a significant expansion in delivery and associated exchequer spending compared to the current system and current future commitments. On the basis of the assumptions provided this costing broadly estimates spending of £12bn - £15bn per year on home energy efficiency compared to around £2bn per year currently committed in the next Parliament for home energy efficiency, heat decarbonisation and public sector decarbonisation combined.
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It's not the same.
In 2016 the debate was about the size of the number.
Today, the story is that the number was a lie, Richi knew it was a lie, he was warned not to use the lie, he lied anyway, he's a liar.
You're missing the big picture. The whole debate is now about whether and by how much Lab will raise taxes.
This is the £350m all over again and you're not seeing it.
Not sure. Maybe.
The 350m was powerful because it had some truth in it... the counter riposte of... oh its 280m actually is weak. And it was clear to the public that leaving EU would mean no more membership fees.
By contrast, Starmer can look into the camera and say we aren't raising your taxes, the Tories have 26 times.
Well he can but we all know taxes are going up if no-one is cutting spending. And Labour dont cut spending,
I think both parties have committed to taxes going up in reality because they aren't changing the thresholds.
Sporting has just edged out its spread on Con seats to 126/134.
Any polls expected today? We have had rather a glut, but the next lot should be post-Farage, and therefore quite informative.
Was speaking to a friend yesterday - doesn't like the Tories, doesn't like Starmer, doesn't like immigration and voted for Brexit. In that sense he sounds like an ideal Reform supporter, but he doesn't like Farage either after his fawning over Trump. So it'll be interesting to see whether Nige is the still the force the media make him out to be, or is even his somewhat niche brand becoming stale.
Interesting, Stark, but I'll need to see some firmer evidence before I change my view that Nige's decision is bad for Tories, so-so for Labour, and a gift for the LDs.
Tempted to buy LD seats at 44 but will wait until Friday to see if Sir Ed can improve on the Harry Worth impression.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
So your aunt and the bus driver didn't see the cyclist and the cyclist can't have seen your aunt's car.
I think it ends up being one of those things but the cyclist shouldn't have been going so fast given that the rest of the traffic was stationary and there was a junction with a gap ahead..
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Are you saying the cyclist was in the cycle lane?
Sounds to me that your aunt was in the wrong, although understandably so. She turned right across the traffic that had priority when she couldn't see it was safe to do. The bus driver, whilst no doubt well meaning, had given her incorrect information. But you do ultimately need to see if the road is clear rather than rely on a gesture.
The cyclist may not be wholly blameless in the sense they might have thought there was some risk passing the bus at some speed at a junction as they'd not be visible. But they do sounds as if they did, in fact, have right if way.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I believe being flashed/gestured to carry on with a manoeuvre by another vehicle is a no-no (ie we’re supposed to ignore them), though of course we all do it.
Opposition policy costing – National Warm Homes Plan – Labour
This would be a significant expansion in delivery and associated exchequer spending compared to the current system and current future commitments. On the basis of the assumptions provided this costing broadly estimates spending of £12bn - £15bn per year on home energy efficiency compared to around £2bn per year currently committed in the next Parliament for home energy efficiency, heat decarbonisation and public sector decarbonisation combined.
Long term investment - could easily be justified borrowing
It’s going to be £2,000 non stop between now and the election. This is the new 350m a week.
“Signed off by the Treasury perm sec” apparently - so the civil service are supporting the Tory campaign.
BBC reports:
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the Conservatives’ assessment of their tax plans "should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service".
The letter from James Bowler, the Treasury permanent secretary, risks undermining Rishi Sunak’s claim in last night’s debate that Labour’s plans include £38bn of uncosted spending, which he says would mean £2,000 of tax rises per working household.
In a letter to Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Bowler writes: "As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document 'Labour’s Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used ... the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party’s publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service".
"I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service," he adds.
For context: Last night, Sunak repeatedly claimed that Labour's spending plans would result in a £2,000 tax rise for Britons - saying "independent Treasury officials have costed Labour's policies and they amount to a £2,000 tax rise for every working family".
Well they were, as noted in "includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service" involved in the production of the figures, as Tory SPADs presented the civil service with scenarios, and made them produce costings. They then cobbled together the BS £2k figure, in part using those costings.
George Osborne on his podcast said they tried this tactic with Brexit and it made no difference. People just didn't believe the numbers.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
See my post upthread about low cost scanners.
(Incidentally, it's a small symptom of what's happening with UK tech that these were developed in Asia. The UK invented MRI; others have now picked up the baton.)
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
Not sure. If the guy has a four grand bike he'll be onto a lawyer asap I'm afraid. Probably has it included as part of his insurance.
FWIW, your aunt should be up front with her insurer about it. The driver who hit my partner was not prosecuted by the police due to lack of evidence, but failed to respond to their insurer when my partner's lawyer issued the claim. This has left the driver pretty much uninsurable, which the police considered a decent outcome in the circs.
Listening to R4 this morning you couldn't move for discussion around Lab's £2,000 tax rise.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
It's not the same.
In 2016 the debate was about the size of the number.
Today, the story is that the number was a lie, Richi knew it was a lie, he was warned not to use the lie, he lied anyway, he's a liar.
You're missing the big picture. The whole debate is now about whether and by how much Lab will raise taxes.
This is the £350m all over again and you're not seeing it.
This is what I'm seeing.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
Though, of course, civil servants were used to do the calculations.
All round evidence of bad faith, IMO.
...
The letter itself is quoted by the BBC (my emphasis)
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider civil service established guidance set out in the Directory of Civil Service Guidance. As per this guidance, the costings produced by HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or representation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used. In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service and published online by HM Treasury. I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service."
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
In theory absolutely but in practice light years away
There are a lot of ordinary people who are struggling with the COL crisis who will make sacrifices when it comes to their health as was the case with our daughter
Team Sunak were delighted with their £2000* tax attack line on Labour after debate last night. But this morning it has become issue of honesty. Problematic.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
The road is two lanes wide, and the bus in one lane gestured to your aunt that he was staying put. It’s on her to check the other lane is clear as she crosses it, knowing that there’s a green light.
That said, traffic in the other lane should be prepared to stop within the distance it can see to be clear, even though it has right of way.
Your aunt’s insurance company is probably going to have to get the bike repaired.
One other point. If the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented a Civil-Service document for political purposes, surely that must be a potential breach of the civil-service code. He's not just put a slant on their figures. He's wrongly assigned authorship.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
The road is two lanes wide, and the bus in one lane gestured to your aunt that he was staying put. It’s on her to check the other lane is clear as she crosses it, knowing that there’s a green light.
That said, traffic in the other lane should be prepared to stop within the distance it can see to be clear, even though it has right of way.
Your aunt’s insurance company is probably going to have to get the bike repaired.
The bike will be the cheap bit, depending on injury, loss of earnings etc
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
So your aunt and the bus driver didn't see the cyclist and the cyclist can't have seen your aunt's car.
I think it ends up being one of those things but the cyclist shouldn't have been going so fast given that the rest of the traffic was stationary and there was a junction with a gap ahead..
That was unwise in terms of the cyclist's own safety, but it's not the same as being at fault. Ultimately, the driver cut across traffic which had priority in circumstances where they saw a friendly but wrong hand gesture, but couldn't actually see whether or not there was traffic on the cycle lane they were cutting across.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Whilst I tend to think that defence spending should rise, I don’t think the absolute level of spending is the entire ball game. How you spend money is just as important as how much money you spend. A genuine strategic defence and security review, not a mislabelled cost cutting exercise, should be conducted. It is clear the risks and threats to peace and security are growing not shrinking and look likely to be persistent over the medium term horizon and that requires a robust response and a retuning of posture.
Indeed. Drones, as DavidL says, are revolutionary, but part of the reason they are revolutionary is that they're cheap. It's not just about spending more money, it's about how we spend it. We have allies, in Ukraine and in fellow NATO member Turkey, who are experts now in drone warfare. We can learn from them.
Making decision and doing things quicker - both on and off the battlefield.
Take artillery - the British military is still wedded to the idea that you line up your SPGs, set up the tea tent, have a conference, start shooting. They talk about shoot and scoot, but...
Instead of trying to add armour to the SPG - the Americans got to the stage of speccing an SPG heavier than a tank - the world is moving to systems that can stop, shoot and be gone in seconds.
Archer - which we are using as an interim, while a Proper System is specced to Unique British Requirements - is much much cheaper, has lower maintenance costs and manning requirements.
I missed the first 20 minutes or so, but didn't think either came across very well and gave what I saw a 0-0 draw. I thought Sunak was rude, spoke over Starmer too often and should have been put in his box by the moderator. Starmer was just dull 9no surprise), but I thought a couple of times he showed some fire when refuting lies from Sunak that had clearly riled him.
More interestingly, my daughter, who is much less political than me and probably more right wing (but still liberal) than her peers, thought Sunak was "very irritating".
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Comments
On your point however the polling indicates voters are not well disposed to the Tories full stop. Labour are sort of meh but will be the chief beneficiaries from the Tories unpopularity.
I wonder if Dehenna Davison could accurately describe what the impact of the Equality Act amendment in question would be. The fact she conflates clarifying the law on sex as a PC to protect single-sex spaces with being anti equal marriage suggests she might not be able to.
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1797917439797420326
But these are trivial in the context of AGI and formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth. The latter being more likely pre-2029 but both probably >50% chance in the next parliament. And then there’s there’s the chance for a tangible advance in age extension tech, only an outside bet for this parliament but presumably won’t lag AGI by too much.
Our political debate is tiresome, trivial and pointless in the context of all this and hardly anyone seems to grasp this.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
It is very much an age issue, but not entirely. Mrs Foxy is fine with Trans rights too.
There obviously is a body of feminist thought that is very sceptical of the Trans rights agenda, but feminists are not of one voice on this, and much of the anti Trans agenda comes from older men, so a strange alliance.
Any polls expected today? We have had rather a glut, but the next lot should be post-Farage, and therefore quite informative.
Now that Sunak and Starmer have defined it on the lines of immigration, tax etc, I do wonder if this favours Farage’s return. Particularly if some defections are lined up for Friday. “Why have Diet Coke when you can have Full Fat?”
Sunak’s decent performance however may stave off some defectors.
What I saw was speed, private rooms, coffee machines, big tvs and life threatening infections.
https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/03/keir-starmer-sensible-radical
'Factory Owner of the OTS' is a suspiciously unbalanced expression. It could be an old garage or railway arch especially in the old days before the Thatcher years wrecked the metalbashing industries of the urban peripheries. And the fact that the name does not come up in Grace's Guide suggests that the business was either very small or non-existent.
This is, or Rishi hopes it will be, the £350m on the NHS of the election campaign.
Who cares if it's true everyone is talking about it so job done for Rishi.
Come on people we learned this in 2016.
https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1798259060049162717
Tom Harwood
@tomhfh
Good line from
@Scarlett__Mag on how the public aren’t listening to Sunak:
“It’s a bit like getting a call from your ex boyfriend. You’ve had enough of them. You don’t want to hear their brilliant plan of why it’s all actually a really great idea for you to get back together.”
On reflection, perhaps Starmer’s decision to let the Tory lie run for a news cycle was genius. What was left of Sunak’s (ill-deserved) reputation for honesty now in tatters…
In 2016 the debate was about the size of the number.
Today, the story is that the number was a lie, Richi knew it was a lie, he was warned not to use the lie, he lied anyway, he's a liar.
“It’s not £2,000!”
“How much is it then?”
The problem for Labour is the perception that they are tax raisers - even if they’re not really much different from the Tories.
Talk about how much Tories have raised taxes through fiscal drag…
But, the outpatient appointment is today. So she's presently, if all has gone to plan, on a half hour ambulance/patient transport ride back home after discharge from the ward. At around 3.30pm another ambulance/patient transport will come to fetch her back to the same hospital for her outpatient appointment and then, after that, bring her home again. My dad and brother were happy to sit with her somewhere at the hospital all day waiting for the appointment if the ward she was on needed her out on time for the bed etc, but they were insistent that they wouldn't change the transport booking. So, one journey becomes three, costs more and substantially worse for my mum.
It's a lie. Richi is a liar. The Civil Service say he's a liar.
That's the line.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the Conservatives’ assessment of their tax plans "should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service".
The letter from James Bowler, the Treasury permanent secretary, risks undermining Rishi Sunak’s claim in last night’s debate that Labour’s plans include £38bn of uncosted spending, which he says would mean £2,000 of tax rises per working household.
In a letter to Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Bowler writes: "As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document 'Labour’s Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used ... the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party’s publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service".
"I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service," he adds.
For context: Last night, Sunak repeatedly claimed that Labour's spending plans would result in a £2,000 tax rise for Britons - saying "independent Treasury officials have costed Labour's policies and they amount to a £2,000 tax rise for every working family".
This is the £350m all over again and you're not seeing it.
PB CYCLISTS. And LAWYERS.
A question.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
(For nothing.)
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
3 reasons Bowler letter is a hammer-blow for Sunak. Totally undermines all Tory tax attacks. The £2,000 figure was a personal line used by Sunak, so now goes to his own character. And it allows Labour to paint any attack on them from here to polling-day as "another Tory lie".
Indeed the full right wing menu
No, UFOs are not going to be the big story of the next parliament.
Asks everyone.
https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1798265905622684010?s=46
The 350m was powerful because it had some truth in it... the counter riposte of... oh its 280m actually is weak. And it was clear to the public that leaving EU would mean no more membership fees.
By contrast, Starmer can look into the camera and say we aren't raising your taxes, the Tories have 26 times.
“More lies from Starmer.”
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph?
When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated (solid white line) cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
He said he had reminded ministers of this
https://x.com/hzeffman/status/1798252445321343456
Though, of course, civil servants were used to do the calculations.
All round evidence of bad faith, IMO.
In any event, anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise that the country's financial problems aren't going to change with a change of government. The question is rather who is likely to make incremental improvements, rather than the opposite.
On the evidence of the last decade, that's not the Tories. There's an outside chance that it might be Labour.
Regarding "£350m all over again", fool me once, etc.
Brexit failed as a practical project to improve the country (or the NHS). Everyone knows that, and that's what they'll remember.
Rishi seemed last night to have been over-briefed, and was determined to get in his lines regardless of context, which is why, especially at the start, he seemed to be shouting nonsense over the moderator.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/opposition-policy-costings-2024
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
They then cobbled together the BS £2k figure, in part using those costings.
E.g. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c25dfa3f6aea0013c1551f/Opposition_Costing_-_National_Warm_Homes_Plan.pdf
Opposition policy costing – National Warm Homes Plan – Labour
This would be a significant expansion in delivery and associated exchequer spending compared to the current
system and current future commitments. On the basis of the assumptions provided this costing broadly estimates
spending of £12bn - £15bn per year on home energy efficiency compared to around £2bn per year currently
committed in the next Parliament for home energy efficiency, heat decarbonisation and public sector
decarbonisation combined.
Tempted to buy LD seats at 44 but will wait until Friday to see if Sir Ed can improve on the Harry Worth impression.
Didn’t watch the debate but I gather shitty Sunak is now in deep water from the Treasury.
I’m sick and tired of the lying tories and hope they are consigned to the dustbin of history.
have a nice day
xx
I think it ends up being one of those things but the cyclist shouldn't have been going so fast given that the rest of the traffic was stationary and there was a junction with a gap ahead..
Sounds to me that your aunt was in the wrong, although understandably so. She turned right across the traffic that had priority when she couldn't see it was safe to do. The bus driver, whilst no doubt well meaning, had given her incorrect information. But you do ultimately need to see if the road is clear rather than rely on a gesture.
The cyclist may not be wholly blameless in the sense they might have thought there was some risk passing the bus at some speed at a junction as they'd not be visible. But they do sounds as if they did, in fact, have right if way.
My guess is the debate makes no difference at all. People have already decided the election.
(Incidentally, it's a small symptom of what's happening with UK tech that these were developed in Asia. The UK invented MRI; others have now picked up the baton.)
FWIW, your aunt should be up front with her insurer about it. The driver who hit my partner was not prosecuted by the police due to lack of evidence, but failed to respond to their insurer when my partner's lawyer issued the claim. This has left the driver pretty much uninsurable, which the police considered a decent outcome in the circs.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider civil service established guidance set out in the Directory of Civil Service Guidance.
As per this guidance, the costings produced by HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service are published on the gov.uk website.
As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production or representation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the Civil Service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service."
There are a lot of ordinary people who are struggling with the COL crisis who will make sacrifices when it comes to their health as was the case with our daughter
Team Sunak were delighted with their £2000* tax attack line on Labour after debate last night. But this morning it has become issue of honesty. Problematic.
(*over four years btw)
That said, traffic in the other lane should be prepared to stop within the distance it can see to be clear, even though it has right of way.
Your aunt’s insurance company is probably going to have to get the bike repaired.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv224x3pmv9o
One other point. If the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented a Civil-Service document for political purposes, surely that must be a potential breach of the civil-service code. He's not just put a slant on their figures. He's wrongly assigned authorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop and all that.
Making decision and doing things quicker - both on and off the battlefield.
Take artillery - the British military is still wedded to the idea that you line up your SPGs, set up the tea tent, have a conference, start shooting. They talk about shoot and scoot, but...
Instead of trying to add armour to the SPG - the Americans got to the stage of speccing an SPG heavier than a tank - the world is moving to systems that can stop, shoot and be gone in seconds.
Archer - which we are using as an interim, while a Proper System is specced to Unique British Requirements - is much much cheaper, has lower maintenance costs and manning requirements.
More interestingly, my daughter, who is much less political than me and probably more right wing (but still liberal) than her peers, thought Sunak was "very irritating".
Therefore, that is a bad layout.