Need to see the detail, but I think Rachel Reeves has grounds to be cross. The in-year funding pressures do genuinely appear to be greater than could be discerned from outside. The £9bn contingency ‘reserve’ has seemingly been spent several times over. It’s a mess."
Reeves says the Tories didn't tell the OBR the numbers. Like, really?
We should remember she is talking about a government that was quite prepared to lie, including to the Commons, when it suited them. Johnson. Shapps. Dorries. To name only the most egregious.
But that's a big claim. If she can't back it up she will be in trouble.
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.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
They would cut fees soon enough if it was that or not fill the places.
Rationing student loans for fees by performance with only people with 3 A's able to borrow the full amount and proportionate amount for lower grades down to £3,000 for 2 E's would concentrate their minds.
And force the lower grade ones to shut or return to focusing on vocational qualifications.
So you force the closure of the university which a pride and joy of the local area.
1) how do you deal with the economic fallout of doing so 2) how do you handle the local MPs who know they've just lost any chance of re-election...
Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.
Shut them.
1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.
2) Tell them tough.
The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.
£9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.
Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.
John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.
The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!
Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)
But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
It's also really quite impressive (to me, old-ish bloke) how many world-class researchers and teachers there are putting out amazing content on youtube for free. Not going to get you a bit of paper and a gold star at the end of it of course.
I do wonder about the fees the OU is charging though for largely remote self-learning.
Karpathy has put out some excellent stuff.
Much of this argument strikes me as very similar to the arguments around home schooling.
Can a student learn the content of a university degree in a self directed fashion? Absolutely.
The problem is that the proportion of students who are capable of doing this off their own bat is ... small. The rest benefit enormously / actually need the structure that a university provides in order to learn anything at all.
If you want to teach a decent fraction of the population at university level, then you‘re going to need to stand up an institution that looks an awful lot like a university. Teaching staff cost money. Lecture halls cost money. Libraries (virtual & otherwise) require Librarians & subscriptions to journals which, guess what, costs money. And so on...
I guess I'm mostly thinking about people who want to learn more off their own bat (like me). But it does increase the questions around diversity in the options offered to school-leavers about how (and when) they learn and how much they pay for it. Again - the fees charged by the OU look increasingly difficult to justify as time goes on.
The OU are awarding degrees though. Most of the online courses aren’t.
If that status quo changes, then yes OU are going to have to drop their fees substantially.
Need to see the detail, but I think Rachel Reeves has grounds to be cross. The in-year funding pressures do genuinely appear to be greater than could be discerned from outside. The £9bn contingency ‘reserve’ has seemingly been spent several times over. It’s a mess."
The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.
The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.
None of this first past the post crap.
I'm going to trot out one of my favourite pointless hobbyhorses again: the not-AV system for electing a single candidate shouldn't really be called FPTP, because there is no post - or rather, the location of the post is dependent on the behaviour of the voters, thereby stretching the horseracing analogy to breaking point. Single member plurality vote is more accurate.
Yes, the language is very misleading.
The 'post' in FPTP refers to half the number of seats in the chamber plus one - the number required to achieve an overall majority. It's a fixed point. A post, as per the racing analogy. (And Election Night graphics sometimes used to literally show the parties as race horses heading towards the winning post.)
So while it does describe our electoral system, the aspect of it that it specifically describes is not what people think.
Using it to refer to plurality/most votes in a seat wins is a nonsense, because that number is not fixed and is consequently not a 'post'. But 'FPTP' is now used almost universally to refer specifically to this, because people are idiots.
It also means - as I argued in 2011 to anyone who'd listen - that AV is technically a First Past the Post system too.
Need to see the detail, but I think Rachel Reeves has grounds to be cross. The in-year funding pressures do genuinely appear to be greater than could be discerned from outside. The £9bn contingency ‘reserve’ has seemingly been spent several times over. It’s a mess."
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Will nobody think of the poor 45-65 year olds in the Home Counties with property-rich parents???
Winter fuel allowance scrapped for those not getting credits.
Damn, that’s bad news for Emirates airline, at least as far as my parents are concerned. They’ve used their WFA to fly somewhere warmer for the past few years.
Interesting to check the life-cycle analysis on how many days one has to jet off somewhere warm to reduce carbon emissions compared to staying in a typical UK home in winter.
I suspect it might be a one-way ticket is required! A train or coach to south of France could be interesting though.
ETA: this website quotes 2.2 tonnes/year for a domestic gas boiler, which they quote as 7 flights from London to NY. If we guess half of that is winter heat then a long stay could start to make sense. London to Paris by train is 22kg return accoridng to seat 61 so, if we guess Marseille is about 3-4 times that, you'd only need to stay way for maybe about a week if my sums are right to break even on CO2.
It’s more than half: the majority of our bill is heating. We had a smart meter installed at the end of Jan - typical summer usage is 13m^3 / month. February? 87 m^3. January was colder. March was 80 m^3, April 40m^3.
So a rough estimate of annual usage might be 3/4 heating, 1/4 cooking / hot water.
On the other hand, a m^3 of natgas weights < 1kg, so we’re using a lot less than that 2.2tonne estimate to heat our 4 bed single skin brick terrace.
The Tories' reputation for financial prudence is in tatters.
Err, no. Not in the slightest.
Are you taking your lines from Labour campaign HQ, now?
I mean literally Casino
It takes some real chutzpah to criticise the previous administration for "promis(ing) roads that would never be built, public transport that would never arrive and hospitals that would never treat a single patient", and then in the same breath cancelling the roads, the public transport and the new hospitals programme ensuring they'll never be built, never arrive and never treat a single patient.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase Prison service worker will see a rise of 5% The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.
The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.
None of this first past the post crap.
I'm going to trot out one of my favourite pointless hobbyhorses again: the not-AV system for electing a single candidate shouldn't really be called FPTP, because there is no post - or rather, the location of the post is dependent on the behaviour of the voters, thereby stretching the horseracing analogy to breaking point. Single member plurality vote is more accurate.
Yes, the language is very misleading.
The 'post' in FPTP refers to half the number of seats in the chamber plus one - the number required to achieve an overall majority. It's a fixed point. A post, as per the racing analogy. (And Election Night graphics sometimes used to literally show the parties as race horses heading towards the winning post.)
So while it does describe our electoral system, the aspect of it that it specifically describes is not what people think.
Using it to refer to plurality/most votes in a seat wins is a nonsense, because that number is not fixed and is consequently not a 'post'. But 'FPTP' is now used almost universally to refer specifically to this, because people are idiots.
It also means - as I argued in 2011 to anyone who'd listen - that AV is technically a First Past the Post system too.
Thanks that is illuminating
It's wrong even when correctly construed of course (because all finishers in a race pass the post, nobody except the winner passes half the seats plus one).
The Tories' reputation for financial prudence is in tatters.
Err, no. Not in the slightest.
Are you taking your lines from Labour campaign HQ, now?
I mean literally Casino
It takes some real chutzpah to criticise the previous administration for "promis(ing) roads that would never be built, public transport that would never arrive and hospitals that would never treat a single patient", and then in the same breath cancelling the roads, the public transport and the new hospitals programme ensuring they'll never be built, never arrive and never treat a single patient.
If they had spent the money that doesn’t exist because the Tories have already spent it 3 times over you would criticise them for not being financially prudent. It’s ridiculous.
That’s said I do agree that this lack of investment is worrying. But still.
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Hm. I'm no expert, but it strikes me that if someone whatsapps you a picture, it is there on your phone. It's not your choice. There was an issue recently at a local school in which some year 7 loose cannon sent images which would presumably contravene this act around the whole year group. Surely that doesn't criminalise the whole year?
Former BBC presenter Huw Edwards has been charged with making indecent images of children, the Metropolitan Police has said.
Crickey.
IIRC “making” in UK law basically means “copied a file onto their computer” doesn’t it? Viewing an image in your web browser is sufficient to meet the criteria.
It’s a strict liability offence too.
It’s an oddity of UK law that the law that was (I presume) intended to be used to charge the creators of such images is the now the one used to prosecute the ones viewing the material in the age of the internet, despite the charge of possession of such images being available.
Technically it even applies where software has downloaded image files without the specific instruction of the user. Which is something that is happening automatically all the time to all of us, without anyone even thinking about it any more.
It's a good example of where law has spectacularly failed to keep up with technology.
But it is, of course, an absolute godsend for the sensationalist media.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Hm. I'm no expert, but it strikes me that if someone whatsapps you a picture, it is there on your phone. It's not your choice. There was an issue recently at a local school in which some year 7 loose cannon sent images which would presumably contravene this act around the whole year group. Surely that doesn't criminalise the whole year?
I guess it depends if you facilitated in encouraging the sending of that image rather than it randomly been sent unsolicited. I would be surprised with such a high profile case / individual if CPS haven't considered the circumstances.
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.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
They would cut fees soon enough if it was that or not fill the places.
Rationing student loans for fees by performance with only people with 3 A's able to borrow the full amount and proportionate amount for lower grades down to £3,000 for 2 E's would concentrate their minds.
And force the lower grade ones to shut or return to focusing on vocational qualifications.
So you force the closure of the university which a pride and joy of the local area.
1) how do you deal with the economic fallout of doing so 2) how do you handle the local MPs who know they've just lost any chance of re-election...
Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.
Shut them.
1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.
2) Tell them tough.
The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.
£9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.
Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.
John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.
The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!
Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)
But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
It's also really quite impressive (to me, old-ish bloke) how many world-class researchers and teachers there are putting out amazing content on youtube for free. Not going to get you a bit of paper and a gold star at the end of it of course.
I do wonder about the fees the OU is charging though for largely remote self-learning.
Karpathy has put out some excellent stuff.
Indeed - his youtube channel is a trove of information. For anyone interested :
AI For Everyone - Coursera (Andrew Ng) https://www.coursera.org/learn/ai-for-everyone A non-technical introduction to AI's impact on businesses and society, suitable for all backgrounds.
Machine Learning - Coursera (Andrew Ng) https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning This foundational course covers the basics of machine learning, including algorithms and applications. Audit option available for free.
Elements of AI - University of Helsinki https://www.elementsofai.com A free online course designed to teach the basics of AI to a broad audience, with no prior experience necessary.
Course on Artificial Intelligence - Stanford University (CS221) http://cs221.stanford.edu/ An overview of AI technology's fundamental concepts, theories, and methods. Course materials are available for free online.
Deep Learning Specialization (Audit option) - Coursera (Andrew Ng) https://www.coursera.org/specializations/deep-learning While the full specialization has a fee, you can audit individual courses for free, covering deep learning foundations.
Data Science: Foundations using R - Coursera (Johns Hopkins University) https://www.coursera.org/learn/data-science-foundations-r While centered on data science, this course covers essential principles that underpin machine learning and AI.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
If we want to socialise social care it needs to be done properly - i.e. through tax. Politicians then need to have an honest conversation unlike @HYUFD who seems to think that we should lower taxes but simultaneously subsidise rich people in the Home Counties so that they can hand millions of pounds of assets to their kids
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food plus also now under Labour for the costs of nursing care over £86k etc
The Tories' reputation for financial prudence is in tatters.
Err, no. Not in the slightest.
Are you taking your lines from Labour campaign HQ, now?
I mean literally Casino
It takes some real chutzpah to criticise the previous administration for "promis(ing) roads that would never be built, public transport that would never arrive and hospitals that would never treat a single patient", and then in the same breath cancelling the roads, the public transport and the new hospitals programme ensuring they'll never be built, never arrive and never treat a single patient.
If they had spent the money that doesn’t exist because the Tories have already spent it 3 times over you would criticise them for not being financially prudent. It’s ridiculous.
That’s said I do agree that this lack of investment is worrying. But still.
Raising tax and borrowing to fund capital investment isn't a position I'd necessarily agree with, but it's an intellectually honest one.
So far, I'd say it's becoming clearer what we'll get from this new administration: higher public sector pay, rather than tax cuts, and public sector statolatry, rather than markets, the same old approach to CapEx and a bit of extra Wokery.
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Hm. I'm no expert, but it strikes me that if someone whatsapps you a picture, it is there on your phone. It's not your choice. There was an issue recently at a local school in which some year 7 loose cannon sent images which would presumably contravene this act around the whole year group. Surely that doesn't criminalise the whole year?
If they opened them and they are illegal images they are all criminals potentially
Former BBC presenter Huw Edwards has been charged with making indecent images of children, the Metropolitan Police has said.
Crickey.
IIRC “making” in UK law basically means “copied a file onto their computer” doesn’t it? Viewing an image in your web browser is sufficient to meet the criteria.
It’s a strict liability offence too.
It’s an oddity of UK law that the law that was (I presume) intended to be used to charge the creators of such images is the now the one used to prosecute the ones viewing the material in the age of the internet, despite the charge of possession of such images being available.
Technically it even applies where software has downloaded image files without the specific instruction of the user. Which is something that is happening automatically all the time to all of us, without anyone even thinking about it any more.
It's a good example of where law has spectacularly failed to keep up with technology.
But it is, of course, an absolute godsend for the sensationalist media.
Indeed. If you can plausibly make the case that the image was there without your knowledge (eg, a low resolution thumbnail in a browser webcache) then the CPS might decide not to prosecute on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest, but the crime has been committed.
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Hm. I'm no expert, but it strikes me that if someone whatsapps you a picture, it is there on your phone. It's not your choice. There was an issue recently at a local school in which some year 7 loose cannon sent images which would presumably contravene this act around the whole year group. Surely that doesn't criminalise the whole year?
Yes. The law is very clear that the owner of the device is liable for the offence.
You can raise the fact that you had nothing to do with it in court & hope that the judge will be merciful, but the offence is a strict liability one - you have committed it by virtue of the image being on a device you control.
The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.
The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.
None of this first past the post crap.
I'm going to trot out one of my favourite pointless hobbyhorses again: the not-AV system for electing a single candidate shouldn't really be called FPTP, because there is no post - or rather, the location of the post is dependent on the behaviour of the voters, thereby stretching the horseracing analogy to breaking point. Single member plurality vote is more accurate.
Yes, the language is very misleading.
The 'post' in FPTP refers to half the number of seats in the chamber plus one - the number required to achieve an overall majority. It's a fixed point. A post, as per the racing analogy. (And Election Night graphics sometimes used to literally show the parties as race horses heading towards the winning post.)
So while it does describe our electoral system, the aspect of it that it specifically describes is not what people think.
Using it to refer to plurality/most votes in a seat wins is a nonsense, because that number is not fixed and is consequently not a 'post'. But 'FPTP' is now used almost universally to refer specifically to this, because people are idiots.
It also means - as I argued in 2011 to anyone who'd listen - that AV is technically a First Past the Post system too.
Thanks that is illuminating
It's wrong even when correctly construed of course (because all finishers in a race pass the post, nobody except the winner passes half the seats plus one).
Good point - should be 'only one past the post (OOPTP)'.
We had an enjoyably spirited argument on here a few months back about this. Grudgingly, I will concede that the evidence about what 'the post' is is somewhat ambiguous and it is one of those terms which has become accepted to mean a thing even if that wasn't exactly the original sense in which it was meant. But I will still maintain that KnightOut's description of what FPTP really means is the correct one. And that for elections such as the mayoral elections we ought now to be talking about the newly proposed 'tallest pile of pieces of paper' (TPOPOP). Which is much more fun to say.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Will nobody think of the poor 45-65 year olds in the Home Counties with property-rich parents???
Well most of them in London and much of the Home Counties voted for Starmer on July 4th even if their parents voted Tory still, some may well be rethinking now
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *really* unpleasant.
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.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
They would cut fees soon enough if it was that or not fill the places.
Rationing student loans for fees by performance with only people with 3 A's able to borrow the full amount and proportionate amount for lower grades down to £3,000 for 2 E's would concentrate their minds.
And force the lower grade ones to shut or return to focusing on vocational qualifications.
So you force the closure of the university which a pride and joy of the local area.
1) how do you deal with the economic fallout of doing so 2) how do you handle the local MPs who know they've just lost any chance of re-election...
Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.
Shut them.
1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.
2) Tell them tough.
The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.
£9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.
Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.
John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.
The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!
Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)
But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
It's also really quite impressive (to me, old-ish bloke) how many world-class researchers and teachers there are putting out amazing content on youtube for free. Not going to get you a bit of paper and a gold star at the end of it of course.
I do wonder about the fees the OU is charging though for largely remote self-learning.
Karpathy has put out some excellent stuff.
Indeed - his youtube channel is a trove of information. For anyone interested :
AI For Everyone - Coursera (Andrew Ng) https://www.coursera.org/learn/ai-for-everyone A non-technical introduction to AI's impact on businesses and society, suitable for all backgrounds.
Machine Learning - Coursera (Andrew Ng) https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning This foundational course covers the basics of machine learning, including algorithms and applications. Audit option available for free.
Elements of AI - University of Helsinki https://www.elementsofai.com A free online course designed to teach the basics of AI to a broad audience, with no prior experience necessary.
Course on Artificial Intelligence - Stanford University (CS221) http://cs221.stanford.edu/ An overview of AI technology's fundamental concepts, theories, and methods. Course materials are available for free online.
Deep Learning Specialization (Audit option) - Coursera (Andrew Ng) https://www.coursera.org/specializations/deep-learning While the full specialization has a fee, you can audit individual courses for free, covering deep learning foundations.
Data Science: Foundations using R - Coursera (Johns Hopkins University) https://www.coursera.org/learn/data-science-foundations-r While centered on data science, this course covers essential principles that underpin machine learning and AI.
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food plus also now under Labour for the costs of nursing care over £86k etc
It cost my son in law £350,000 to keep his parents in care
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Maybe the schools will be happy to accept a promise from Ms Reeves in lieu of cash up front.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
The cap was due to come in next year and is now cancelled indefinitely
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
If you're a middle class parent, you kind of have to spend money on an SEN diagnosis because the waiting list is typically 2-6 years long. If you can't afford it, you just have to put up with your kids' educational needs going unmet.
Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.
Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...
We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy
Its not exactly great look on what Bad Al used to call the Media Matrix, to have 20% pay rise vs no money must cut all this spending on infrastructure. Need to space it out to different weeks.
It's the nurses I feel sorry for. They only got 5%.
Only 5%.
I mean 5% pay rise is nice but it's nothing compared to 20% for doctors, and nurses work just as hard if not harder than doctors (it's the nurses who have to do all the shitty jobs like dealing with bedpans etc)
If I was leading the nursing unions I'd be putting in for 20% when their next pay around comes up.
Isn't your bedpan more likely to be dealt with by a healthcare assistant now?
Healthcare assistants are not paid well.
No no.
The Healthcare Assistants are going to get pay rises etc. Which will create an opening for cheap, badly paid, badly treated skivies to be pushed around and given the literally shit jobs.
Then in a few years.....
The beauty of this methodology is that there is no limit to how long this can carry on.
AFAIK HCAs are on approx £23-30k per annum, plus (I assume) the NHS package.
Does anyone have a better number?
I'm going to be prodding at least one of my tenants to have a look at claiming pension credit, who does not like tangling with officialdom - self-reliant, old-fashioned type.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
That's useless. It is a *proposal* not the actual current regulations. As it says at the very beginning, "This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government".
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Maybe the schools will be happy to accept a promise from Ms Reeves in lieu of cash up front.
How does that work? If the LA has to pay the fees, plus VAT, promises from Reeves don't enter into it.
A further complication that probably hasn't occured to Reeves or the DfE is that SEND students tend to pay rather more than ordinary fees. VAT on £10,000 would be annoying, VAT on £70,000 comes expensive.
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
Monster
Late to the party obv but I can never resist a pile-ons.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
The cap was due to come in next year and is now cancelled indefinitely
Thanks. Are the means testing changes cancelled too?
"In addition, the upper capital limit (UCL), the point at which people become eligible to receive some financial support from their local authority, will rise to £100,000 from the current £23,250. As a result, people with less than £100,000 of chargeable assets will never contribute more than 20% of these assets per year. The UCL of £100,000 will apply universally, irrespective of the circumstances or setting in which an individual receives care, making it a much more generous offer than a previous proposal in 2015. The lower capital limit (LCL), the threshold below which people will not have to pay anything for their care from their assets will increase to £20,000 from £14,250."
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
If we want to socialise social care it needs to be done properly - i.e. through tax. Politicians then need to have an honest conversation unlike @HYUFD who seems to think that we should lower taxes but simultaneously subsidise rich people in the Home Counties so that they can hand millions of pounds of assets to their kids
Dilnot report is the definitive work on this subject which Reeves has put in cold storage
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Hm. I'm no expert, but it strikes me that if someone whatsapps you a picture, it is there on your phone. It's not your choice. There was an issue recently at a local school in which some year 7 loose cannon sent images which would presumably contravene this act around the whole year group. Surely that doesn't criminalise the whole year?
Yes it does. In theory, if you run to the police station, throw them your unlocked phone etc they won’t prosecute.
There was a case of a man who found a shotgun that had been chucked over the wall into his garden. Being a trusting chap, he took it to the police station. And was charge with possessing a firearm without a license. Because it was an easy nick.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
The cap was due to come in next year and is now cancelled indefinitely
Thanks. Are the means testing changes cancelled too?
"In addition, the upper capital limit (UCL), the point at which people become eligible to receive some financial support from their local authority, will rise to £100,000 from the current £23,250. As a result, people with less than £100,000 of chargeable assets will never contribute more than 20% of these assets per year. The UCL of £100,000 will apply universally, irrespective of the circumstances or setting in which an individual receives care, making it a much more generous offer than a previous proposal in 2015. The lower capital limit (LCL), the threshold below which people will not have to pay anything for their care from their assets will increase to £20,000 from £14,250."
That's the same proposal HYUFD cited, only regurgitated from some corporate website. From the Johnson administration. Undated but clearly before October 2023, perhaps quite a b it more.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
If we want to socialise social care it needs to be done properly - i.e. through tax. Politicians then need to have an honest conversation unlike @HYUFD who seems to think that we should lower taxes but simultaneously subsidise rich people in the Home Counties so that they can hand millions of pounds of assets to their kids
Dilnot report is the definitive work on this subject which Reeves has put in cold storage
To be fair Sunak postponed it from Oct 23 to Oct 25 (ie to after the next election, leaving a hand grenade for the new government)
I wonder if Rachel will get the kind of press Gordon got after his first outing in government? For Gordon the media response was nothing short of spiritual euphoria!
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
There's a lot of potential in having a better system than that. A family member put their first child through that at *huge* cost (multiple meetings attended accompanied by a specialist barrister with a report for each one - couple of thousand each time). For a further child they opted out and spent the money on support and tuition, rather than lawyers and aggro.
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?
Can our Government get assets back from the Isle of Man?
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Lot of middle class money being spent on SEN diagnoses from educational psychologists presumably
I was called a monster for pointing out that this sort of thing was going on.
If you bother to talk to some actual teachers, the number of children with undiagnosed, untreated SEND issues is rather large.
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
I have talked to some teachers.
Part of the problem is that local authorities are overwhelmed by people who know how to play the system to get round the 2 child UC cap and get free taxi transport, so geniune cases get overlooked and genuine applicants who don't know how to /want to play the system get turned down.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Maybe the schools will be happy to accept a promise from Ms Reeves in lieu of cash up front.
How does that work? If the LA has to pay the fees, plus VAT, promises from Reeves don't enter into it.
A further complication that probably hasn't occured to Reeves or the DfE is that SEND students tend to pay rather more than ordinary fees. VAT on £10,000 would be annoying, VAT on £70,000 comes expensive.
If the government is paying then the VAT comes straight back into government coffers anyway though. The Treasury isn’t going to care whether they pay VAT on things, although individual government departments might get tetchy about it.
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?
News from 2032
“The second enquiry into the COVID Corruption Commission has opened today. Questions unanswered include - how did Commission spend £7.8 Billions pounds to recover £10.21? Why was a detective agency entirely composed of former Met Police officers, fired for corruption, employed?….”
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
PB Tories can now officially say 'THIS IS THE WORST GOVERNMENT OF MY LIFETIME'. Feels great, we haven't been able to say that since early 2010!!
I did try and warn everyone this would happen a few weeks ago.
Few wanted to listen.
The tragedy is not just that you were right, but also that I was right that they were and are still a better option than leaving the Tories in power.
I'm going to get stung tremendously by the inevitable CGT increases but at least I have a serious government trying to govern seriously in the interest of all.
Labour have just unintentionally bankrupted every local authority in England.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *realy* unpleasant.
Maybe the schools will be happy to accept a promise from Ms Reeves in lieu of cash up front.
How does that work? If the LA has to pay the fees, plus VAT, promises from Reeves don't enter into it.
A further complication that probably hasn't occured to Reeves or the DfE is that SEND students tend to pay rather more than ordinary fees. VAT on £10,000 would be annoying, VAT on £70,000 comes expensive.
If the government is paying then the VAT comes straight back into government coffers anyway though. The Treasury isn’t going to care whether they pay VAT on things, although individual government departments might get tetchy about it.
But it isn't.
The Local Authority has to pay it.
They're already financially more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin.
If they have to make this initial payment out, even if they theoretically get it back later we should expect a wave of insolvency.
Also, if I were a LA I would want to know who will pay the financing costs of any loans/overdrafts they need to arrange to pay for it.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
Her priority is clear, and it's raising public sector pay:
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase Prison service worker will see a rise of 5% The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
PB Tories can now officially say 'THIS IS THE WORST GOVERNMENT OF MY LIFETIME'. Feels great, we haven't been able to say that since early 2010!!
I did try and warn everyone this would happen a few weeks ago.
Few wanted to listen.
The tragedy is not just that you were right, but also that I was right that they were and are still a better option than leaving the Tories in power.
I'm going to get stung tremendously by the inevitable CGT increases but at least I have a serious government trying to govern seriously in the interest of all.
It's not in the interest of all ....that's clearly another ludicrous statement.
PB Tories can now officially say 'THIS IS THE WORST GOVERNMENT OF MY LIFETIME'. Feels great, we haven't been able to say that since early 2010!!
I did try and warn everyone this would happen a few weeks ago.
Few wanted to listen.
The tragedy is not just that you were right, but also that I was right that they were and are still a better option than leaving the Tories in power.
I'm going to get stung tremendously by the inevitable CGT increases but at least I have a serious government trying to govern seriously in the interest of all.
A serious government that's adopting exactly the same approach to long-term capital investment as the last one, and is just focused on feathering a different nest.
You've changed the colour of your shirt. That's it.
Until we have cross party agreement on social care and the acceptance of the need for higher taxes to pay for it then nothing will change .
Labour has just introduced its own dementia tax by scrapping the social care costs cap, that will hit 45-65 year olds with home owning parents in London and the Home Counties particularly
It will effect many who expect an inheritance from their parents as care costs rise and the term in care extends in some cases to years and even for both parents
Though if they need at home care only the family home will be exempt from sale, other assets can still be used now to fund care costs over £86k. Plus the home can still be sold as before for residential care costs accomodation and food etc
But the cap never came in in the first place did it? It was just a proposal?
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?
A big bit of slight of hand by Reeves there though. Almost half of that £22 billion is public sector pay rises - which is a political choice, not a 'black hole'.
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Hm. I'm no expert, but it strikes me that if someone whatsapps you a picture, it is there on your phone. It's not your choice. There was an issue recently at a local school in which some year 7 loose cannon sent images which would presumably contravene this act around the whole year group. Surely that doesn't criminalise the whole year?
Don’t know if you saw this case. But it does rather put the onus in the receiver even if unsolicited.
According to the charge sheet, Mr Edwards is accused of having six category A images, 12 category B pictures and 19 category C photographs on WhatsApp.
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Hm. I'm no expert, but it strikes me that if someone whatsapps you a picture, it is there on your phone. It's not your choice. There was an issue recently at a local school in which some year 7 loose cannon sent images which would presumably contravene this act around the whole year group. Surely that doesn't criminalise the whole year?
If they opened them and they are illegal images they are all criminals potentially
The issue is that you don't need to 'open' anything to be technically guilty.
Simply scrolling through a social media feed results in the automatic download of images over which you have no control. Well, OK, you could enable some sort of content filter, or make sure you connect via an ISP that does this at the Server-side level, but neither is entirely foolproof, and the first option might not even save you if it does the filtering after the download has occurred and the image is already cached.
Traditionally British Law was quite good - comparatively, at least - at taking into account individual agency, responsibility and intention. The digital age has muddied these waters because it has created unambiguous 'offences' (with reliable data trails as evidence) in a legal space where ambiguity and nuance is imperative.
There is still a massive lack of understanding about how technology works, even from those who are super-savvy at using it purely from the user side. Even today I had to explain to an intelligent, clued-up, not especially old person that anything and everything that appears on her device has had to be downloaded in order for her to see/hear it. She was insistent she hadn't downloaded the material in question (which wasn't dodgy!), and she may not have chosen to do so, but it had nevertheless been downloaded from the internet to her device and that's how things work. Even live streaming works by continuously downloading small packets of data and putting them together correctly at the other end.
'I saw something online'. No you didn't. Your software downloaded it from 'online' onto your own hardware and that's where you actually saw it. Maybe 'making cat videos' should be a crime?...
The full new State Pension is £221.20. Pensioners credit tops up income to a max of £ 218.15 so the difference is about £160.
Therefore someone living on the New State Pension (only) is going to be about £140 worse off than someone on Pensioners Credit when they lose the £300 winter fuel payment. This is without all the other benefits that those on Pensioners Credit receive.
Also means that immigrants turning up in later life will get more than someone paying a lifetimes National Insurance.
The full new State Pension is £221.20. Pensioners credit tops up income to a max of £ 218.15 so the difference is about £160.
Therefore someone living on the New State Pension (only) is going to be about £140 worse off than someone on Pensioners Credit when they lose the £300 winter fuel payment. This is without all the other benefits that those on Pensioners Credit receive.
Also means that immigrants turning up in later life will get more than someone paying a lifetimes National Insurance.
Not 300 - only for the real oldies etc. Some get/got £250.
Comments
Assuming everything goes well, Labour can probably dine out on Trusses financial incompetence at least until the next election.
If things go badly, and especially if Labour end up presiding on their own financial crisis, then the line will wear thin pretty quickly...
@BenZaranko
Need to see the detail, but I think Rachel Reeves has grounds to be cross. The in-year funding pressures do genuinely appear to be greater than could be discerned from outside. The £9bn contingency ‘reserve’ has seemingly been spent several times over. It’s a mess."
https://x.com/BenZaranko/status/1817937159292117436
Just Labour rewarding its client base of public sector workers by hitting the Tories' client base of wealthy pensioners
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1817945276432171482
But, reading that, it sounds like they're saying the Treasury were complicit in it. Hmmm, not sure that will go down well.
If that status quo changes, then yes OU are going to have to drop their fees substantially.
In 1972 £10 was a decent sum of money. Today - seriously?
In other news catholic bear popes in woods
The 'post' in FPTP refers to half the number of seats in the chamber plus one - the number required to achieve an overall majority. It's a fixed point. A post, as per the racing analogy. (And Election Night graphics sometimes used to literally show the parties as race horses heading towards the winning post.)
So while it does describe our electoral system, the aspect of it that it specifically describes is not what people think.
Using it to refer to plurality/most votes in a seat wins is a nonsense, because that number is not fixed and is consequently not a 'post'. But 'FPTP' is now used almost universally to refer specifically to this, because people are idiots.
It also means - as I argued in 2011 to anyone who'd listen - that AV is technically a First Past the Post system too.
Yes, Labour are much better at free-spending money that others have already done the hard work to create rather than find it in the 1st place.
Are you taking your lines from Labour campaign HQ, now?
The offences are contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If found guilty, he could receive a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Stuff costs.
So a rough estimate of annual usage might be 3/4 heating, 1/4 cooking / hot water.
On the other hand, a m^3 of natgas weights < 1kg, so we’re using a lot less than that 2.2tonne estimate to heat our 4 bed single skin brick terrace.
NHS workers and teachers will get a 5.5% pay rise
Armed forces personnel will get a 6% increase
Prison service worker will see a rise of 5%
The police will get a pay increase of 4.75%
It's wrong even when correctly construed of course (because all finishers in a race pass the post, nobody except the winner passes half the seats plus one).
That’s said I do agree that this lack of investment is worrying. But still.
Technically it even applies where software has downloaded image files without the specific instruction of the user. Which is something that is happening automatically all the time to all of us, without anyone even thinking about it any more.
It's a good example of where law has spectacularly failed to keep up with technology.
But it is, of course, an absolute godsend for the sensationalist media.
AI For Everyone - Coursera (Andrew Ng)
https://www.coursera.org/learn/ai-for-everyone
A non-technical introduction to AI's impact on businesses and society, suitable for all backgrounds.
Machine Learning - Coursera (Andrew Ng)
https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning
This foundational course covers the basics of machine learning, including algorithms and applications. Audit option available for free.
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (AI) - edX (IBM)
https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-artificial-intelligence-ai
A comprehensive introduction to AI concepts and technologies, including machine learning and deep learning.
Artificial Intelligence Foundations: Neural Networks - LinkedIn Learning
https://www.linkedin.com/learning/artificial-intelligence-foundations-neural-networks
An introductory course on neural networks, suitable for beginners. Requires a LinkedIn account but offers free trials.
Elements of AI - University of Helsinki
https://www.elementsofai.com
A free online course designed to teach the basics of AI to a broad audience, with no prior experience necessary.
AI Programming with Python - Udacity
https://www.udacity.com/course/ai-programming-python-nanodegree--nd089
Covers the basics of programming in Python and how to build AI applications using libraries like NumPy, pandas, and PyTorch.
Course on Artificial Intelligence - Stanford University (CS221)
http://cs221.stanford.edu/
An overview of AI technology's fundamental concepts, theories, and methods. Course materials are available for free online.
Deep Learning Specialization (Audit option) - Coursera (Andrew Ng)
https://www.coursera.org/specializations/deep-learning
While the full specialization has a fee, you can audit individual courses for free, covering deep learning foundations.
AI and Machine Learning for Coders - Google
https://codelabs.developers.google.com/codelabs/machine-learning-intro/
A free course aimed at those with coding experience, focusing on practical applications of AI and ML.
Data Science: Foundations using R - Coursera (Johns Hopkins University)
https://www.coursera.org/learn/data-science-foundations-r
While centered on data science, this course covers essential principles that underpin machine learning and AI.
You are such a peasant.
So far, I'd say it's becoming clearer what we'll get from this new administration: higher public sector pay, rather than tax cuts, and public sector statolatry, rather than markets, the same old approach to CapEx and a bit of extra Wokery.
You can raise the fact that you had nothing to do with it in court & hope that the judge will be merciful, but the offence is a strict liability one - you have committed it by virtue of the image being on a device you control.
We had an enjoyably spirited argument on here a few months back about this. Grudgingly, I will concede that the evidence about what 'the post' is is somewhat ambiguous and it is one of those terms which has become accepted to mean a thing even if that wasn't exactly the original sense in which it was meant.
But I will still maintain that KnightOut's description of what FPTP really means is the correct one. And that for elections such as the mayoral elections we ought now to be talking about the newly proposed 'tallest pile of pieces of paper' (TPOPOP). Which is much more fun to say.
Where a child is funded to be in an independent school because their needs can not be met in the state sector, the local authority will have those costs refunded.
They don't have the money, duh.
How do they manage the gap between paying it out and getting it back very slowly from the Treasury?
It was always a stupid idea, but this could get *really* unpleasant.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-our-plan-for-health-and-social-care/adult-social-care-charging-reform-further-details
Few wanted to listen.
If you can't afford it, you just have to put up with your kids' educational needs going unmet.
Does anyone have a better number?
I'm going to be prodding at least one of my tenants to have a look at claiming pension credit, who does not like tangling with officialdom - self-reliant, old-fashioned type.
A further complication that probably hasn't occured to Reeves or the DfE is that SEND students tend to pay rather more than ordinary fees. VAT on £10,000 would be annoying, VAT on £70,000 comes expensive.
Late to the party obv but I can never resist a pile-ons.
"In addition, the upper capital limit (UCL), the point at which people become eligible to receive some financial support from their local authority, will rise to £100,000 from the current £23,250. As a result, people with less than £100,000 of chargeable assets will never contribute more than 20% of these assets per year. The UCL of £100,000 will apply universally, irrespective of the circumstances or setting in which an individual receives care, making it a much more generous offer than a previous proposal in 2015. The lower capital limit (LCL), the threshold below which people will not have to pay anything for their care from their assets will increase to £20,000 from £14,250."
There was a case of a man who found a shotgun that had been chucked over the wall into his garden. Being a trusting chap, he took it to the police station. And was charge with possessing a firearm without a license. Because it was an easy nick.
For me, RR reported a £22bn black hole - I am not clear whether that is per annum or one-off or a mix. But 5.5bn this year and 8bn next year looks like there is a lot still to come.
The COVID Corruption Commission will also be interesting - how much is that supposed to recover: 10s of millions, 100s of millions, or billions?
The “over diagnosis” thing is a pile of shit.
It will be a very longtime before that applies to labour
Winter Rugby Allowance, as my parents call it. About time.
Reply. So you are wealthy if not on pension credit or any benefit for that matter. That's plainly bollocks.
Part of the problem is that local authorities are overwhelmed by people who know how to play the system to get round the 2 child UC cap and get free taxi transport, so geniune cases get overlooked and genuine applicants who don't know how to /want to play the system get turned down.
It was delayed to next year and now is cancelled by Reeves
“The second enquiry into the COVID Corruption Commission has opened today. Questions unanswered include - how did Commission spend £7.8 Billions pounds to recover £10.21? Why was a detective agency entirely composed of former Met Police officers, fired for corruption, employed?….”
Because there was no money to fund it.
I'm going to get stung tremendously by the inevitable CGT increases but at least I have a serious government trying to govern seriously in the interest of all.
The Local Authority has to pay it.
They're already financially more buggered than a rent boy in the Kremlin.
If they have to make this initial payment out, even if they theoretically get it back later we should expect a wave of insolvency.
Also, if I were a LA I would want to know who will pay the financing costs of any loans/overdrafts they need to arrange to pay for it.
You've changed the colour of your shirt. That's it.
Question is, how long will it take for them to run out of others peoples money this time?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams
The issue is that you don't need to 'open' anything to be technically guilty.
Simply scrolling through a social media feed results in the automatic download of images over which you have no control. Well, OK, you could enable some sort of content filter, or make sure you connect via an ISP that does this at the Server-side level, but neither is entirely foolproof, and the first option might not even save you if it does the filtering after the download has occurred and the image is already cached.
Traditionally British Law was quite good - comparatively, at least - at taking into account individual agency, responsibility and intention. The digital age has muddied these waters because it has created unambiguous 'offences' (with reliable data trails as evidence) in a legal space where ambiguity and nuance is imperative.
There is still a massive lack of understanding about how technology works, even from those who are super-savvy at using it purely from the user side. Even today I had to explain to an intelligent, clued-up, not especially old person that anything and everything that appears on her device has had to be downloaded in order for her to see/hear it. She was insistent she hadn't downloaded the material in question (which wasn't dodgy!), and she may not have chosen to do so, but it had nevertheless been downloaded from the internet to her device and that's how things work. Even live streaming works by continuously downloading small packets of data and putting them together correctly at the other end.
'I saw something online'. No you didn't. Your software downloaded it from 'online' onto your own hardware and that's where you actually saw it. Maybe 'making cat videos' should be a crime?...
Therefore someone living on the New State Pension (only) is going to be about £140 worse off than someone on Pensioners Credit when they lose the £300 winter fuel payment. This is without all the other benefits that those on Pensioners Credit receive.
Also means that immigrants turning up in later life will get more than someone paying a lifetimes National Insurance.
https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/how-much-youll-get