The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
In theory today's announcements of cuts to spending should be good news for interest rate announcements as they're disinflationary. Also tax rises are, in the round, disinflationary. Obviously public sector wage increases are inflationary.
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
The Brynglas Tunnels were a major bottleneck from the day the new Severn Bridge opened in the ‘90s, and their replacement or bypass really should have been thought about at the same time.
The A303 past Stonehenge has been a massive bottleneck for even longer, especially in the summer evenings. I remember being in the queue for what felt like hours as a kid in the ‘80s. Someone needs to decide to either start digging the tunnel or dual the existing road, then JFDI.
So much of the national infrastructure can be improved by eliminating a small number of these transport pinch points.
The problem with removing those pinch points is that it will simply reveal another issue further on...
I actually heard a valid argument for HS3 going to Wales a couple of weeks ago - the current rail tunnels are so old that the next set of maintenance will take years/ a decade to complete. So the plan would be:
1) build new tunnel to HS spec, 2) route trains into new tunnel 3) refurbish old tunnel 4) build new line
The reason for 3/4 is that the expensive bit is the new tunnel everything else is cheap compared to that tunnel..
A303 has been duelled for the rest of its route already (or soon will be completed).
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.
A comment of astounding naivety.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Mr. eek, fair or not, constructing high speed rail for Wales when it was promised and not delivered for both Leeds and Manchester would be a fantastic way of pissing off the North of England and uniting both sides of the Pennines in annoyance.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them. 2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.
A comment of astounding naivety.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Maybe so and maybe no.
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them. 2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
That would be the Liberal Democrats that want to ban smoking and legalise cannabis.
If we as a party believe prohibition isn’t working for recreational drugs , then why seek to increase the prohibition to more things and fuel the black market and organised crime groups with more things they can do?
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were Leavers
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.
A comment of astounding naivety.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Maybe so and maybe no.
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.
What costs weren't predicted - the problem was the old Government changed it's mind and then said - oops costs have increased (because we changed them).
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them. 2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
That would be the Liberal Democrats that want to ban smoking and legalise cannabis.
If we as a party believe prohibition isn’t working for recreational drugs , then why seek to increase the prohibition to more things and fuel the black market and organised crime groups with more things they can do?
Would the black market for cigarettes under the proposal be informal friends and family or organised crime? I suspect the former is significantly more likely. It is a shame NZ didnt try it first as this is a question it would be good to be confident on before implementation.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%
Please stop combining conservative and reform votes - it is wholly misleading and silly
No pickle. There are two groups of voters - the hard right and the traditional right.
No matter how had the Tories try to cosplay Farage they will only ever be a berk in a silly costume. The hard right want the Nigel and can have him - look he's in parliament leading a party and everything.
The Tories have spent a decade trying to edge out Farage by getting more and more mental - and look what good it did them. A record vote for the nutter party and a record desertion of the non-nutter vote from themselves.
Their route back to power is simple: Fuck Farage.
Tell the Brexit obsessives and jingoists that they should join Reform. Bring back the Conservative Party, oppose from a base of sensible economics, pro business and moderate social values. Recover. Win.
Yes, they will lose some of their vote to Farage. But *that has already happened*. But they can win back all their other lost voters. And their self-respect. And besides which the Faragists are genuinely dying off. Unless the Tories can rediscover policies which encourage 20-somethings to vote for them, they will also die off.
That isn't really true, Reform did best on 4th July with 50 to 60 year olds while it was the Sunak Tories that did best with pensioners. Reform even beat the Tories with under 30s.
In France too and Italy Le Pen and Meloni do best with the middle aged not the elderly. Indeed in France Macron and his party poll best with pensioners now.
In the US too Trump's voteshare with the young has risen but his voteshare with over 65s hasn't since 2020
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were Leavers
Yeah but you're missing the crucial point. To win back power the Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them. Leavers are a diminishing bunch. Most people now correctly realise Brexit was a mistake, Leavers are literally dying off and most of those remaining as it were are perfectly OK with Reform.
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them. 2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
That would be the Liberal Democrats that want to ban smoking and legalise cannabis.
If we as a party believe prohibition isn’t working for recreational drugs , then why seek to increase the prohibition to more things and fuel the black market and organised crime groups with more things they can do?
Would the black market for cigarettes under the proposal be informal friends and family or organised crime? I suspect the former is significantly more likely. It is a shame NZ didnt try it first as this is a question it would be good to be confident on before implementation.
Why would organised crime leave an incredibly lucrative field to amateurs?
ETA and we already know the answer because the black market already exists. Half the tobacco smoked in this country is smuggled
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them. 2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
Although Cable's chapter did propose abolishing the department in which he later served as Secretary of State for five years!
TSE asks a fair question. The Orange Book was on the economically liberal side of things (prefigured free schools, for instance) and indeed Cable, despite his Labour roots, was relatively right wing on economic matters as many SDP-ers were.
My view is that wing (my wing, to be honest) is rather out of favour with Lib Dem grassroots post-Coalition. But SE England Lib Dem MPs may well be more sympathetic if only on electoral grounds - they aren't going to hang onto seats in Surrey, Sussex and Oxfordshire by tacking left of Labour.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
There's also a big cost in fighting the pay award recommended, in terms both of industrial action and recruitment/retention.
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Throwing money at staff won't solve productivity increases - that requires investment in productivity improvements and guess what the last Government didn't spend that much money doing?
Hint I was on gcloud for many years but gave up because it really wasn't worth the hassle...
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
They already tried that when Brookes first became a university. Brookes told them to Foxtrot Oscar.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.
Je Suis Paris.
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'. It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion. Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.
Great thread. The economic significance of the battery industry is still hugely underestimated.
1/Here's something I've been wondering about recently: How did the U.S. miss the battery revolution?
With every other technological revolution, we anticipated it well in advance, and as a result we were the first -- or one of the first -- to take advantage of it... https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1817597177281335482
Re the conversation earlier I could be wrong (I often am) but I have never found any issue between Social Democrats and Liberals in the LDs unlike the wings of other parties.
Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.
A comment of astounding naivety.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Maybe so and maybe no.
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.
What costs weren't predicted - the problem was the old Government changed it's mind and then said - oops costs have increased (because we changed them).
That's what happens when promises meet reality.
Costs rise and timescales lengthen.
I'm old enough to remember when PBers would angrily deny that HS2 could cost more than £30bn.
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Indeed so. They should all be banned from striking, same as the police and the armed forces.
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.
A comment of astounding naivety.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Maybe so and maybe no.
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.
What costs weren't predicted - the problem was the old Government changed it's mind and then said - oops costs have increased (because we changed them).
That's what happens when promises meet reality.
Costs rise and timescales lengthen.
I'm old enough to remember when PBers would angrily deny that HS2 could cost more than £30bn.
And then they decided to build a tunnel through the Chilterns to appease Cheryl Gillan. All they achieved there was turning a safe Tory seat into a safe(ish) Lib Dem one..
Good news: Russian artillery losses reaching a new high. 74 reported for the day, 1,477 for the month of July so far.
Bad news: A British government reaching for cuts to infrastructure spending, again, as a temporary expedient to balance the books, and because they're incapable of making the case to the public of the necessity to invest for the future, at the cost of tax rises or cuts to current spending, in the present. Cowards.
Meanwhile in Ireland, the word is that the government will give voters another cash bung in the form of a credit on their electricity bills. How everyone will wish this money was more wisely spent when the corporation tax bonanza dries up.
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.
I always assumed that given both Richard Curtis and Atkinson were at Oxford the joke was originally written the other way around ('Cambridge is a complete dump') - but Fry being the good Cambridge fellow he was ad libbed the other way around.
Its all just from the new government playbook 101. Of course its worse than we feared.
It's political games alright, but also nonsense as the OBR regularly publishes reviews of the public finances. Labour knew where we stand before the election took place, and then kept quiet throughout the campaign, and only now are we going to find out what they are going to do. i.e. Cuts and tax rises.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.
Je Suis Paris.
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'. It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion. Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.
The interplay between the sacred and the profane in western art long predates the Enlightenment.
Trying to change that is beyond regressive - it invites the sort of barbarism we see in the clerical autocracies.
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.
I'm fairly sure the being "lost for words for a moment" was acting on Atkinson's part. The point was that Melchett had comically misinterpreted the nature of the trap Blackadder had set. Blackadder was taken aback but wasn't able to correct his superior officer.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Throwing money at staff won't solve productivity increases - that requires investment in productivity improvements and guess what the last Government didn't spend that much money doing?
Hint I was on gcloud for many years but gave up because it really wasn't worth the hassle...
It needs investment in productivity improvements which show a positive return.
Investing is easy.
Getting a positive return on that investment is much harder and can be a matter of luck.
That applies whether the investment is in business, infrastructure, public sector productivity or merely who the Dem VP choice will be.
Re the conversation earlier I could be wrong (I often am) but I have never found any issue between Social Democrats and Liberals in the LDs unlike the wings of other parties.
I was politically active during the Alliance and the merger and attended the Liberal Party Special Assembly at Blackpool in January 1988 which endorsed the merger. There was, on the Liberal side, some resistance led by Michael Meadowcroft and some of the northern liberals but the merger line was always going to win.
Locally, we lost one activist (former SDP) who went off with the Owenites but kept everyone else though it was a very difficult time.
After 35 years, no one cares except our opponents who try to make an issue out of it.
It will be interesting to see if, by 2050, it still matters in the Conservative Party how you voted in the 2016 referendum.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Throwing money at staff won't solve productivity increases - that requires investment in productivity improvements and guess what the last Government didn't spend that much money doing?
Hint I was on gcloud for many years but gave up because it really wasn't worth the hassle...
It needs investment in productivity improvements which show a positive return.
Investing is easy.
Getting a positive return on that investment is much harder and can be a matter of luck.
That applies whether the investment is in business, infrastructure, public sector productivity or merely who the Dem VP choice will be.
You need to start investing money first before you can talk about whether the return was positive or not.
In reality the last Government hasn't done so there are core functions at HMRC that take you to a page from 2007 which then has a manual backend to attach money to the account...
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?
Not usually, but there have been in the NHS and education over the last couple of years. And the railways, which are quasi-public sector.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Wrong question anyway.
"Pay rises have to come from productivity" is about how much public sector workers ought to be paid. But there is no ought.
The cost of a worker is somewhere in the overlap between the amount the employer is willing to offer and the employee is willing to accept. That's if there is an overlap at all. If there isn't the post doesn't get filled, which is increasingly what's happening. With the consequences we see around us.
If the state isn't willing to pay staff enough, it needs to get used to running with holes in the staffing structure. You can complain, you can stamp your feet, but you can't force people to do these jobs.
(See also: civil servants and similar ought to be in the office five days a week.)
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
There's also a big cost in fighting the pay award recommended, in terms both of industrial action and recruitment/retention.
And the question of who leaves if pay is constrained:
The most productive, competent and ambitious who are able to find better paid jobs elsewhere
The time servers who most value the other attributes of public sector employment
Now, it's not that simple, of course and in some public sector roles it's a vocation so you a have some truly excellent people who simply won't want to switch to the private sector. But - well, if pay is irrelevant in attracting the best then why do companies pay their senior execs so much?
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?
Or give them some sort of associate status. Might be a legal fight over this but Cambridge lawyers...
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
The Brynglas Tunnels were a major bottleneck from the day the new Severn Bridge opened in the ‘90s, and their replacement or bypass really should have been thought about at the same time.
The A303 past Stonehenge has been a massive bottleneck for even longer, especially in the summer evenings. I remember being in the queue for what felt like hours as a kid in the ‘80s. Someone needs to decide to either start digging the tunnel or dual the existing road, then JFDI.
So much of the national infrastructure can be improved by eliminating a small number of these transport pinch points.
The problem with removing those pinch points is that it will simply reveal another issue further on...
I actually heard a valid argument for HS3 going to Wales a couple of weeks ago - the current rail tunnels are so old that the next set of maintenance will take years/ a decade to complete. So the plan would be:
1) build new tunnel to HS spec, 2) route trains into new tunnel 3) refurbish old tunnel 4) build new line
The reason for 3/4 is that the expensive bit is the new tunnel everything else is cheap compared to that tunnel..
A303 has been duelled for the rest of its route already (or soon will be completed).
No it hasn't. As things stand building the Stonehenge bypass would just move the queue 10 miles west to the end of the Wylye Bypass.
Only improvement since 1990 is the under construction 2 mile link between Sparkford and Ilchester bypasses (without building the Ilchester bypass flyover)
First thing Bliar did in 1997 was can Ilminster to Honiton dualling which was ready to start with all approvals.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
Wait until ms Reeves starts bleeding them dry...
Yes, there will inevitably be a fall off in political interest after a significant event - there always is. How long the ennui will last remains to be seen - I suspect there's more goodwill for the new Government than you and the other Conservative supporters might think especially if we see improving economic news.
As to trying to fill in the hole dug by the previous Government, the June borrowing figures were pretty bad and I can appreciate Reeves having some painful choices ahead.
The debt is one thing - the deficit however is another. I'd like to see the deficit being reduced but the days of simply cutting spending, cutting taxes and hoping for the best are over. There's plenty of scope for tax raising which isn't necessarily personal tax - Land Value Taxation for example. There is a recognition the sustainability of public services is paramount and if that means we all pay more to maintain those services, so be it.
That's the sea change from the last 40 years of propaganda claiming public services are wasteful and inefficient and there was big scope for cuts. There are some areas, defence for one, where I'm certain we aren't getting value for our £66 billion.
The elephant in the room remains adult social care (as well as care for vulnerable children). The Conservatives completely failed to come up with any kind of solution and left often well-run local authorities to either face bankruptcy or make savage cuts to other services. Whether the Tories were too frightened, too stupid or just too weak to come up with anything after more than a decade I don't know but all three work for me.
The solution won't be pretty - it will require all of us (I suspect) to make much greater provision for our later life than hitherto and that will grate with a consumption-based "I want it now" economic culture but it's the only way. Earlier generations funded their later years from property asset appreciation - that won't be available for many in the future and especially if we build more and get the supply/demand side of the housing equation under control.
I'd also bore you all a bit further and throw in the obligatory comment about carers by which I mean family-based care. The provision of care within the family should be the objective and the ideal but just as those who need the care need help so do those who provide it. Caring for older (or younger) relatives should be viewed as a valued and valuable activity.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.
Besides, the space to the left of Labour has now been largely occupied by the greens. (Though it will be interesting to see how the urban Labour-facing Green vs. rural Conservative-facing Green dynamic plays out).
"Occupied" - love it .
Interestingly different perspectives.
For some cancelling building on the Stonehenge site and the East London River Crossing is "but they won't invest". For me it's cancelling a few billions of Conservative Hail Mary Pork Barrel, with an opportunity to think about it and invest more wisely.
Enormous road schemes are not often well designed, and often deliver relatively poor returns. So thought is needed.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Well, that's one view and one from the outside certainly and we need no lessons in economic probity from the Conservatives after the last 14 years.
To an extent, the Orange Book was already on the way out before 2010 - the Coalition had only been possible because of the brief convergence between the Orange Bookers and Cameron's "liberal conservative" ideas. That didn't last long in government and as soon as the Tories got fixated on Europe the parties quickly diverged.
The LD manifesto on the economic side was one of the areas where I struggled with what the Party was saying, I don't think "free personal care" is a starter much though I'd like it. An extra £27 billion of public spending isn't that much given inflation and while I'd have preferred a commitment to a real term freeze on public spending, that probably isn't possible currently but we have to reduce the deficit.
Let's be fair - no Party (even Reform) had any coherent ideas on how to get the public finances back under control. I would be looking to set annual targets for borrowing with a view to getting the finances back to neutral in one Parliament and then build surpluses through following Parliaments but that's much easier said than done.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%
Please stop combining conservative and reform votes - it is wholly misleading and silly
I was about to post the same and for two reasons:
a) if you are going to combine Tory and Reform, why not combine Lab, LD and Green? It would be daft but consistent.
b) When knocking up for the LDs in Guildford on election day we are obviously only knocking up our confirmed voters. My personal results from several hundred houses knocked on were:
A very large number of LDs obviously 1 Tory 0 Labour (although several made the point that they were voting LD tactically) 1 not voting (whom I almost convinced to vote) A dozen or so Reform
Others reported the same trend re confirmed LDs voting Reform
These Reform voters had said they were going to vote LD. There were lots of them swayed by the Reform message. I am assuming these are disaffected voters, but if the LDs were losing them to Reform, how many would Labour have had in that boat as well as it is not like there is much overlap between LD and Reform.
So to claim Reform voters can be put in the same pile as Tories is wrong.
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?
Would Oriel vote for the extra competition from Oik College, Headington?
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?
In a forced choice between Torpids and torpor I'd strenuously recommend the latter.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?
Would Oriel vote for the extra competition from Oik College, Headington?
I'm guessing no.
Not sure they're fussed as long as they beat the House.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.
Je Suis Paris.
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'. It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion. Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.
Good post. Some people don't seem to realise that The Last Supper is simply the imagining of an artist of an event that in all likelihood never took place. Whether it has religeous significance is purely in the eye of the beholder. It has been parodied more than almost any other so called religious painting so this was nothing special.
As for the Iranians objecting; All depictions of Mohammed are forbidden as are depictions of all religeous figures. Indeed in the more religeous parts all works of art except script from the Koran are forbidden so taking lectures from them on artistic integrity is suely intended as a joke
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his calls
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?
Would Oriel vote for the extra competition from Oik College, Headington?
I'm guessing no.
Not sure they're fussed as long as they beat the House.
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.
I always assumed that given both Richard Curtis and Atkinson were at Oxford the joke was originally written the other way around ('Cambridge is a complete dump') - but Fry being the good Cambridge fellow he was ad libbed the other way around.
That makes perfect sense. From now on, this will be the canonical truth.
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.
I always assumed that given both Richard Curtis and Atkinson were at Oxford the joke was originally written the other way around ('Cambridge is a complete dump') - but Fry being the good Cambridge fellow he was ad libbed the other way around.
That makes perfect sense. From now on, this will be the canonical truth.
I've been telling you for fourteen years that austerity wasn't a choice, you owe David Cameron and George Osborne et al an apology.
Rachel Reeves will promise to sell off empty public buildings and slash government spending on consultants to balance the books, as she accuses the Conservatives of “running away” from difficult economic decisions and wrecking the nation’s finances.
In her first major speech as chancellor, Reeves will identify a £20 billion black hole in government spending on Monday as she seeks to pin the blame for future tax rises on Tory profligacy.
Echoing the arguments made by George Osborne for austerity after the Conservatives won power in 2010, Reeves will warn government departments and quangos of a cost-cutting drive across Whitehall after the Conservatives over-spent this year’s budgets by billions of pounds. The chancellor will launch the Office of Value for Money, a government agency to combat waste, as she warns of tighter spending.
As part of an immediate squeeze, she will accelerate the sell-off of empty public buildings and reduce the use of external consultants, a move expected to save £500 million.
The sale of surplus public property — a money-raising policy championed by Osborne — has generated £3 billion for the exchequer since 2010. Government reliance on consultants dramatically increased after Brexit and during the pandemic. Since the last election, Deloitte has won contracts worth £1.9 billion while its rivals, KPMG, EY and PwC, have earned £1.3 billion, £1.03 billion and £1 billion respectively.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were Leavers
Yeah but you're missing the crucial point. To win back power the Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them. Leavers are a diminishing bunch. Most people now correctly realise Brexit was a mistake, Leavers are literally dying off and most of those remaining as it were are perfectly OK with Reform.
"Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them" Which of the potential leaders makes that most likely?
Interesting. The TP53 gene has been know about for over four decades, and its mutations are involved in a huge number of cancers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53
Until now, there's been no therapeutic approach to targeting it in cancer.
p53 protein abundance is a therapeutic window across TP53 mutant cancers and is targetable with proximity inducing small molecules https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.27.605429v1 TP53 mutant cancers are associated with approximately half of cancer deaths. The most common mechanism of p53 inactivation involves missense mutations. Such mutations in TP53 result in a robust upregulation of the p53 protein. Here, we demonstrate an induced proximity approach to selectively kill TP53 mutant cells. This approach uses the increased abundance of p53 protein in TP53 mutant cancer cells to concentrate toxic molecules in these cells. We demonstrate the first generalizable strategy using a small molecule to selectively kill TP53 mutant cells. This molecule binds the Y220C mutant of p53 and concentrates a PLK1 inhibitor in cells harboring TP53 Y220C mutations. Together, these data demonstrate that the abundance of p53 protein provides a therapeutic window for TP53 missense mutant cancers that can be translated into a cell death signal using proximity-inducing small molecules...
This is preclinical research, but looks very promising as an approach for drug development.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%
Please stop combining conservative and reform votes - it is wholly misleading and silly
I was about to post the same and for two reasons:
a) if you are going to combine Tory and Reform, why not combine Lab, LD and Green? It would be daft but consistent.
b) When knocking up for the LDs in Guildford on election day we are obviously only knocking up our confirmed voters. My personal results from several hundred houses knocked on were:
A very large number of LDs obviously 1 Tory 0 Labour (although several made the point that they were voting LD tactically) 1 not voting (whom I almost convinced to vote) A dozen or so Reform
Others reported the same trend re confirmed LDs voting Reform
These Reform voters had said they were going to vote LD. There were lots of them swayed by the Reform message. I am assuming these are disaffected voters, but if the LDs were losing them to Reform, how many would Labour have had in that boat as well as it is not like there is much overlap between LD and Reform.
So to claim Reform voters can be put in the same pile as Tories is wrong.
Not all of them no but the majority of those Reform voters would have voted for Boris in 2019, even in Guildford and even if they had said before they were going LD this time. Most of them would have voted Leave in 2016 as well, Guildford as a whole voted Remain though so it was Remainers who won it for the LDs
@petebuttigieg: “If you’re talking about military tribunals for political opponents, you have no business talking about freedom. If you’re into banning books, you have no business letting a word like liberty escape your lips.” https://x.com/InsideWithPsaki/status/1817600598725832715
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Sounds a hell of a lot more plausible than the official results.
Just as the Belarusian exit poll giving Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya two thirds of the vote was a hell of a lot more plausible than the one giving that fat old loser Lukashenko an eight to one win.
Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
Wait until ms Reeves starts bleeding them dry...
Yes, there will inevitably be a fall off in political interest after a significant event - there always is. How long the ennui will last remains to be seen - I suspect there's more goodwill for the new Government than you and the other Conservative supporters might think especially if we see improving economic news.
As to trying to fill in the hole dug by the previous Government, the June borrowing figures were pretty bad and I can appreciate Reeves having some painful choices ahead.
The debt is one thing - the deficit however is another. I'd like to see the deficit being reduced but the days of simply cutting spending, cutting taxes and hoping for the best are over. There's plenty of scope for tax raising which isn't necessarily personal tax - Land Value Taxation for example. There is a recognition the sustainability of public services is paramount and if that means we all pay more to maintain those services, so be it.
That's the sea change from the last 40 years of propaganda claiming public services are wasteful and inefficient and there was big scope for cuts. There are some areas, defence for one, where I'm certain we aren't getting value for our £66 billion.
The elephant in the room remains adult social care (as well as care for vulnerable children). The Conservatives completely failed to come up with any kind of solution and left often well-run local authorities to either face bankruptcy or make savage cuts to other services. Whether the Tories were too frightened, too stupid or just too weak to come up with anything after more than a decade I don't know but all three work for me.
The solution won't be pretty - it will require all of us (I suspect) to make much greater provision for our later life than hitherto and that will grate with a consumption-based "I want it now" economic culture but it's the only way. Earlier generations funded their later years from property asset appreciation - that won't be available for many in the future and especially if we build more and get the supply/demand side of the housing equation under control.
I'd also bore you all a bit further and throw in the obligatory comment about carers by which I mean family-based care. The provision of care within the family should be the objective and the ideal but just as those who need the care need help so do those who provide it. Caring for older (or younger) relatives should be viewed as a valued and valuable activity.
Mm. And yet the Tories treated carers abominably. It's one thing to earn a little over the regulation limit, especially if this is a weekly thing and disappears over the month/year, but quite another to have to pay a marginal tax rate of 8190%.
I don't blame those of us on 50-100K a year for being annoyed about step changes, but this is something else again.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
In many roles its not permitted to lack a staff member or have someone else pick up the slack, having 20% vacancies doesn't mean 80% of the staff do 100% of the work, it means that 20% of the staff are filled by agency workers, at about 150%-200% of the cost it would be otherwise.
My nan was a teacher and semi-retired in the 80s when my grandad got cancer and she stepped into agency work instead which paid considerably better per day than she'd get as a permanent employee.
Which is fine for odd days that need to be covered but when agency are getting used on an effectively permanent basis that's insanely unproductive.
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
The Brynglas Tunnels were a major bottleneck from the day the new Severn Bridge opened in the ‘90s, and their replacement or bypass really should have been thought about at the same time.
The A303 past Stonehenge has been a massive bottleneck for even longer, especially in the summer evenings. I remember being in the queue for what felt like hours as a kid in the ‘80s. Someone needs to decide to either start digging the tunnel or dual the existing road, then JFDI.
So much of the national infrastructure can be improved by eliminating a small number of these transport pinch points.
The problem with removing those pinch points is that it will simply reveal another issue further on...
I actually heard a valid argument for HS3 going to Wales a couple of weeks ago - the current rail tunnels are so old that the next set of maintenance will take years/ a decade to complete. So the plan would be:
1) build new tunnel to HS spec, 2) route trains into new tunnel 3) refurbish old tunnel 4) build new line
The reason for 3/4 is that the expensive bit is the new tunnel everything else is cheap compared to that tunnel..
A303 has been duelled for the rest of its route already (or soon will be completed).
No it hasn't. As things stand building the Stonehenge bypass would just move the queue 10 miles west to the end of the Wylye Bypass.
Only improvement since 1990 is the under construction 2 mile link between Sparkford and Ilchester bypasses (without building the Ilchester bypass flyover)
First thing Bliar did in 1997 was can Ilminster to Honiton dualling which was ready to start with all approvals.
My mistake (mainly as I join at Mere if I am going West). Still needs to be done though.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
In many roles its not permitted to lack a staff member or have someone else pick up the slack, having 20% vacancies doesn't mean 80% of the staff do 100% of the work, it means that 20% of the staff are filled by agency workers, at about 150%-200% of the cost it would be otherwise.
My nan was a teacher and semi-retired in the 80s when my grandad got cancer and she stepped into agency work instead which paid considerably better per day than she'd get as a permanent employee.
Which is fine for odd days that need to be covered but when agency are getting used on an effectively permanent basis that's insanely unproductive.
Also quality falls, often: in teaching for instance, with an unfamiliar class/teacher/course progress.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were Leavers
Yeah but you're missing the crucial point. To win back power the Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them. Leavers are a diminishing bunch. Most people now correctly realise Brexit was a mistake, Leavers are literally dying off and most of those remaining as it were are perfectly OK with Reform.
To win a majority they need to win back Remainers who voted for Cameron and Conservative in 2019 to keep Corbyn out, yes.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
In many roles its not permitted to lack a staff member or have someone else pick up the slack, having 20% vacancies doesn't mean 80% of the staff do 100% of the work, it means that 20% of the staff are filled by agency workers, at about 150%-200% of the cost it would be otherwise.
My nan was a teacher and semi-retired in the 80s when my grandad got cancer and she stepped into agency work instead which paid considerably better per day than she'd get as a permanent employee.
Which is fine for odd days that need to be covered but when agency are getting used on an effectively permanent basis that's insanely unproductive.
It varies from sector to sector and what may be true of teaching/education isn't necessarily true in terms of legal work, countryside management or finance. Yes, there are certain senior positions (Section 151 Officer) for example which have to be occupied whether by a permanent or interim member of staff but it's not wholly the case and roles do tend to sit vacant until they are "deleted" (thus incurring a saving on the salary budget even though no one has been paid for months).
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.
Je Suis Paris.
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'. It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion. Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.
Good post. Some people don't seem to realise that The Last Supper is simply the imagining of an artist of an event that in all likelihood never took place. Whether it has religeous significance is purely in the eye of the beholder. It has been parodied more than almost any other so called religious painting so this was nothing special.
As for the Iranians objecting; All depictions of Mohammed are forbidden as are depictions of all religeous figures. Indeed in the more religeous parts all works of art except script from the Koran are forbidden so taking lectures from them on artistic integrity is suely intended as a joke
The vast majority of 'religious' art in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland), which of course meant most art at the time, was destroyed during the Reformation, and much of what was left during the Commonwealth. Which doesn't suggest that Christians, especially Protestants, are particularly sensitive about preserving art.
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
There's a lot in that. When John Prescott was Deputy PM, his office required all Council services to be online (to various extents).
At the time I was overseeing a Council website. The list of Council Delivered Services had approximately 800 services in it, which is a measure of the diversity, and all had to be accounted for.
Do you want such services, or have them externalised / privatised and the Council supervising - which does not really lessen the amount of institutional knowledge required because as soon as that is lessened they lose the skillset to regulate, and the service is difficult to hold to account.
Where do you draw the line? Do we want a service to deal with rats and swarms of bees? Dog wardens? Meals on wheels? A nice local park? A town museum? Rights of Way officers? An accessibility officer? People to clean the beach? An ability to deal with ASB or noise? The white lines on our roads repainted? Panic buttons for supported housing?
At present in many or most places, some of the above are so under resourced so as to be ineffective, or have simply vanished with resource starvation.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Comments
Obviously public sector wage increases are inflationary.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/conservative-friends-israel-lobby-group-free-trips/
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
And yet people accuse him of not expanding his base.
2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1817722684089713119?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/how-our-lib-dem-mps-voted-on-the-tobacco-and-vapes-bill-2nd-reading-75028.html
This comment hits the nail on the head:
If we as a party believe prohibition isn’t working for recreational drugs , then why seek to increase the prohibition to more things and fuel the black market and organised crime groups with more things they can do?
That's how this happens -
In France too and Italy Le Pen and Meloni do best with the middle aged not the elderly. Indeed in France Macron and his party poll best with pensioners now.
In the US too Trump's voteshare with the young has risen but his voteshare with over 65s hasn't since 2020
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/29/just-stop-oil-try-block-departures-gatwick-airport/
ETA and we already know the answer because the black market already exists. Half the tobacco smoked in this country is smuggled
TSE asks a fair question. The Orange Book was on the economically liberal side of things (prefigured free schools, for instance) and indeed Cable, despite his Labour roots, was relatively right wing on economic matters as many SDP-ers were.
My view is that wing (my wing, to be honest) is rather out of favour with Lib Dem grassroots post-Coalition. But SE England Lib Dem MPs may well be more sympathetic if only on electoral grounds - they aren't going to hang onto seats in Surrey, Sussex and Oxfordshire by tacking left of Labour.
Hint I was on gcloud for many years but gave up because it really wasn't worth the hassle...
The economic significance of the battery industry is still hugely underestimated.
1/Here's something I've been wondering about recently: How did the U.S. miss the battery revolution?
With every other technological revolution, we anticipated it well in advance, and as a result we were the first -- or one of the first -- to take advantage of it...
https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1817597177281335482
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
Costs rise and timescales lengthen.
I'm old enough to remember when PBers would angrily deny that HS2 could cost more than £30bn.
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
But as % not that Wait until ms Reeves starts bleeding them dry...
Bad news: A British government reaching for cuts to infrastructure spending, again, as a temporary expedient to balance the books, and because they're incapable of making the case to the public of the necessity to invest for the future, at the cost of tax rises or cuts to current spending, in the present. Cowards.
Meanwhile in Ireland, the word is that the government will give voters another cash bung in the form of a credit on their electricity bills. How everyone will wish this money was more wisely spent when the corporation tax bonanza dries up.
Trying to change that is beyond regressive - it invites the sort of barbarism we see in the clerical autocracies.
Investing is easy.
Getting a positive return on that investment is much harder and can be a matter of luck.
That applies whether the investment is in business, infrastructure, public sector productivity or merely who the Dem VP choice will be.
Locally, we lost one activist (former SDP) who went off with the Owenites but kept everyone else though it was a very difficult time.
After 35 years, no one cares except our opponents who try to make an issue out of it.
It will be interesting to see if, by 2050, it still matters in the Conservative Party how you voted in the 2016 referendum.
In reality the last Government hasn't done so there are core functions at HMRC that take you to a page from 2007 which then has a manual backend to attach money to the account...
"Pay rises have to come from productivity" is about how much public sector workers ought to be paid. But there is no ought.
The cost of a worker is somewhere in the overlap between the amount the employer is willing to offer and the employee is willing to accept. That's if there is an overlap at all. If there isn't the post doesn't get filled, which is increasingly what's happening. With the consequences we see around us.
If the state isn't willing to pay staff enough, it needs to get used to running with holes in the staffing structure. You can complain, you can stamp your feet, but you can't force people to do these jobs.
(See also: civil servants and similar ought to be in the office five days a week.)
Corbyn's unpopularity seduced the Tory right in thinking the public were on board with their extreme view of Brexit.
Brexit killed the Tory party.
- The most productive, competent and ambitious who are able to find better paid jobs elsewhere
- The time servers who most value the other attributes of public sector employment
Now, it's not that simple, of course and in some public sector roles it's a vocation so you a have some truly excellent people who simply won't want to switch to the private sector. But - well, if pay is irrelevant in attracting the best then why do companies pay their senior execs so much?Only improvement since 1990 is the under construction 2 mile link between Sparkford and Ilchester bypasses (without building the Ilchester bypass flyover)
First thing Bliar did in 1997 was can Ilminster to Honiton dualling which was ready to start with all approvals.
As to trying to fill in the hole dug by the previous Government, the June borrowing figures were pretty bad and I can appreciate Reeves having some painful choices ahead.
The debt is one thing - the deficit however is another. I'd like to see the deficit being reduced but the days of simply cutting spending, cutting taxes and hoping for the best are over. There's plenty of scope for tax raising which isn't necessarily personal tax - Land Value Taxation for example. There is a recognition the sustainability of public services is paramount and if that means we all pay more to maintain those services, so be it.
That's the sea change from the last 40 years of propaganda claiming public services are wasteful and inefficient and there was big scope for cuts. There are some areas, defence for one, where I'm certain we aren't getting value for our £66 billion.
The elephant in the room remains adult social care (as well as care for vulnerable children). The Conservatives completely failed to come up with any kind of solution and left often well-run local authorities to either face bankruptcy or make savage cuts to other services. Whether the Tories were too frightened, too stupid or just too weak to come up with anything after more than a decade I don't know but all three work for me.
The solution won't be pretty - it will require all of us (I suspect) to make much greater provision for our later life than hitherto and that will grate with a consumption-based "I want it now" economic culture but it's the only way. Earlier generations funded their later years from property asset appreciation - that won't be available for many in the future and especially if we build more and get the supply/demand side of the housing equation under control.
I'd also bore you all a bit further and throw in the obligatory comment about carers by which I mean family-based care. The provision of care within the family should be the objective and the ideal but just as those who need the care need help so do those who provide it. Caring for older (or younger) relatives should be viewed as a valued and valuable activity.
Interestingly different perspectives.
For some cancelling building on the Stonehenge site and the East London River Crossing is "but they won't invest". For me it's cancelling a few billions of Conservative Hail Mary Pork Barrel, with an opportunity to think about it and invest more wisely.
Enormous road schemes are not often well designed, and often deliver relatively poor returns. So thought is needed.
Good morning everyone.
To an extent, the Orange Book was already on the way out before 2010 - the Coalition had only been possible because of the brief convergence between the Orange Bookers and Cameron's "liberal conservative" ideas. That didn't last long in government and as soon as the Tories got fixated on Europe the parties quickly diverged.
The LD manifesto on the economic side was one of the areas where I struggled with what the Party was saying, I don't think "free personal care" is a starter much though I'd like it. An extra £27 billion of public spending isn't that much given inflation and while I'd have preferred a commitment to a real term freeze on public spending, that probably isn't possible currently but we have to reduce the deficit.
Let's be fair - no Party (even Reform) had any coherent ideas on how to get the public finances back under control. I would be looking to set annual targets for borrowing with a view to getting the finances back to neutral in one Parliament and then build surpluses through following Parliaments but that's much easier said than done.
a) if you are going to combine Tory and Reform, why not combine Lab, LD and Green? It would be daft but consistent.
b) When knocking up for the LDs in Guildford on election day we are obviously only knocking up our confirmed voters. My personal results from several hundred houses knocked on were:
A very large number of LDs obviously
1 Tory
0 Labour (although several made the point that they were voting LD tactically)
1 not voting (whom I almost convinced to vote)
A dozen or so Reform
Others reported the same trend re confirmed LDs voting Reform
These Reform voters had said they were going to vote LD. There were lots of them swayed by the Reform message. I am assuming these are disaffected voters, but if the LDs were losing them to Reform, how many would Labour have had in that boat as well as it is not like there is much overlap between LD and Reform.
So to claim Reform voters can be put in the same pile as Tories is wrong.
I'm guessing no.
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
(Probably every bit as much as the declared result, IMO.)
Edison research commissioned an exit poll in Venezuela that, at 6pm, gives Edmundo Gonzalez, the opposition leader, 64% to Maduro's 31%. source below
https://x.com/anneapplebaum/status/1817725481179091196
As for the Iranians objecting; All depictions of Mohammed are forbidden as are depictions of all religeous figures. Indeed in the more religeous parts all works of art except script from the Koran are forbidden so taking lectures from them on artistic integrity is suely intended as a joke
I recall a few songs on this matter.
Hs character is likely to spend most of the movie masked...
Yeah, go along with that.
Which of the potential leaders makes that most likely?
The TP53 gene has been know about for over four decades, and its mutations are involved in a huge number of cancers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53
Until now, there's been no therapeutic approach to targeting it in cancer.
p53 protein abundance is a therapeutic window across TP53 mutant cancers and is targetable with proximity inducing small molecules
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.27.605429v1
TP53 mutant cancers are associated with approximately half of cancer deaths. The most common mechanism of p53 inactivation involves missense mutations. Such mutations in TP53 result in a robust upregulation of the p53 protein. Here, we demonstrate an induced proximity approach to selectively kill TP53 mutant cells. This approach uses the increased abundance of p53 protein in TP53 mutant cancer cells to concentrate toxic molecules in these cells. We demonstrate the first generalizable strategy using a small molecule to selectively kill TP53 mutant cells. This molecule binds the Y220C mutant of p53 and concentrates a PLK1 inhibitor in cells harboring TP53 Y220C mutations. Together, these data demonstrate that the abundance of p53 protein provides a therapeutic window for TP53 missense mutant cancers that can be translated into a cell death signal using proximity-inducing small molecules...
This is preclinical research, but looks very promising as an approach for drug development.
https://x.com/InsideWithPsaki/status/1817600598725832715
Just as the Belarusian exit poll giving Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya two thirds of the vote was a hell of a lot more plausible than the one giving that fat old loser Lukashenko an eight to one win.
I don't blame those of us on 50-100K a year for being annoyed about step changes, but this is something else again.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/28/dwp-unpaid-carers-told-to-repay-benefits-allowance
My nan was a teacher and semi-retired in the 80s when my grandad got cancer and she stepped into agency work instead which paid considerably better per day than she'd get as a permanent employee.
Which is fine for odd days that need to be covered but when agency are getting used on an effectively permanent basis that's insanely unproductive.
https://x.com/PaulRodgers0904/status/1817477562609614859
However even on 4th July 37% of Leavers still voted Tory compared to just 16% of Remainers who still voted Tory. So if the Tories lose their remaining Leave voters to Reform as well as those Leavers who have already gone to Farage, Farage would end up LOTO
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election
Which doesn't suggest that Christians, especially Protestants, are particularly sensitive about preserving art.
At the time I was overseeing a Council website. The list of Council Delivered Services had approximately 800 services in it, which is a measure of the diversity, and all had to be accounted for.
Do you want such services, or have them externalised / privatised and the Council supervising - which does not really lessen the amount of institutional knowledge required because as soon as that is lessened they lose the skillset to regulate, and the service is difficult to hold to account.
Where do you draw the line? Do we want a service to deal with rats and swarms of bees? Dog wardens? Meals on wheels? A nice local park? A town museum? Rights of Way officers? An accessibility officer? People to clean the beach? An ability to deal with ASB or noise? The white lines on our roads repainted? Panic buttons for supported housing?
At present in many or most places, some of the above are so under resourced so as to be ineffective, or have simply vanished with resource starvation.
It all needs thinking about.