Does it matter who Harris picks? Shapiro might or might not help in Pennsylvania, on the other hand he might dampen some of the Harris youth enthusiasm because of his strong support for Israel. Walz would at least put a white Christian male on the ticket, if that's worth anything.
I would choose whoever is going to be best at defending Harris from attacks on her being out of touch Californian liberal elite. Probably Walz.
Doesn't the research suggest that if the candidate picks an obvious duffer as their VP candidate (e.g. Palin, Vance) it can have a negative effect as the public decides the Presidential candidate is poor at decision making, but there's not much evidence of active positive effects? Nate Silver has a piece where he suggests the statistics suggest that the "home state bonus" for the VP is about half a percentage point, which is rarely going to matter.
None of the mooted VP candidates here are obvious duffers, so it likely doesn't matter much who gets picked.
As an aside, the last time the Democrats chose a religious North Eastern Jew as the running mate to a youthful, but largely charisma free ex-VP, they lost the election... Narrowly.
History is essentially certain to repeat itself, so if Shapiro is the Democratic nominee, I expect it all to come down to hanging chads in Florida.
It is for a similar reason of coincidence that I first suggested Shapiro several weeks ago when VP's were first mentioned. I was walking down the street and I met an old friend who I hadn't seen for maybe 30 years and his name was (David) Shapiro!
I think the top 3 aren't contentious, and will be OK if the NHS service improves, waiting lists down etc.
Stonehenge Road tunnel was a political arse-saving pork barrel exercise which is way down the list of transport schemes that should be done.
Winter-fuel allowance is the tricky one politically, but the newspapers which are always demanding benefits cuts for poor people are suddenly squealing at a modest benefit cut for wealthier people. A surprising reaction? On that one, I think RR has the correct judgement, but has been a little too tight at the low end.
Cancelling the long-term cap is not spending money that had never been spent, since it was part of the financial brick wall the previous Govt had created that was delayed until after the election to try and save their butt. Boris Johnson's Government chose to delay this until after the next Election. I don't like her delaying it, but I can't blame her for not following an agenda laid down by Conservative cynicism.
However in recent months – and following two changes of prime minister – reform has entirely stalled. In its November 2022 Autumn Statement, the government announced that the cap and means test reforms would be postponed until October 2025. With a general election to be held no later than January 2025, there is therefore a significant risk that these reforms are never implemented. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/blogs/reform-social-care-vanishing-over-horizon
Overall, these are really just tinkerings at the edges. Sea changes are still to come.
I think a lot of this comes down to the different constituencies of the Conservative Party (pensioners with some money) and the Labour Party (public sector workers).
Both parties can make cases for and against universal welfare for pensioners and above inflation pay deals for doctors etc. At the margins they went for the arrangements that benefited their respective constituencies.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Be more efficient to get the relevant court system speeded up. The Tories were making noises about that.
Of course, it would be ironic to see rioters and boat people both get top tier treatment compared to the rest of us.
There are 100,000 pending claims that the Tory Government allowed to build up because they cut back the people dealing with them.
Personally I think we have no choice but to allow the grant the x0,000 longest waiting migrants, settlement and the right to work. Nothing else is going to fix the mess...
As an aside, the last time the Democrats chose a religious North Eastern Jew as the running mate to a youthful, but largely charisma free ex-VP, they lost the election... Narrowly.
History is essentially certain to repeat itself, so if Shapiro is the Democratic nominee, I expect it all to come down to hanging chads in Florida.
In the closest presidential election in US history where just 1000 more votes in Florida for Gore and Lieberman would have won them the EC as well as the popular vote they did win.
As I said though Lieberman was from CT which was going for Gore anyway, had he picked Florida Senator Nelson he would likely have narrowly won the state and the election
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Does it matter who Harris picks? Shapiro might or might not help in Pennsylvania, on the other hand he might dampen some of the Harris youth enthusiasm because of his strong support for Israel. Walz would at least put a white Christian male on the ticket, if that's worth anything.
I would choose whoever is going to be best at defending Harris from attacks on her being out of touch Californian liberal elite. Probably Walz.
Doesn't the research suggest that if the candidate picks an obvious duffer as their VP candidate (e.g. Palin, Vance) it can have a negative effect as the public decides the Presidential candidate is poor at decision making, but there's not much evidence of active positive effects? Nate Silver has a piece where he suggests the statistics suggest that the "home state bonus" for the VP is about half a percentage point, which is rarely going to matter.
None of the mooted VP candidates here are obvious duffers, so it likely doesn't matter much who gets picked.
Given the latest PA poll is Harris 45% Trump 45% even half a percentage point could win the state and election
If the Labour government have decided they need to get tough on a sudden surge of violent and anti social behaviour, with rapid justice and tough custodial sentences....will they carry that on once it calms down? There's a gang of scum that ride around Loughborough Town centre, in broad daylight, on stolen scooters and motorbikes, with 2 or 3 of them on one bike in balaclavas and hoodies, weaving in and out of traffic and riding the wrong way down roads and kicking cars as they pass. They even comment on the multiple posts in the town Facebook groups about them. I've been waiting at traffic lights with a police car behind me, when the scum have driven past. They were gone before the copper had woken up. Cracking down on this sort of shit would improve the town immeasurably.
That's an interesting one, and I think is down to the local PCC and Chief Constable not giving it priority, plus resources etc.
The Met had huge problems with "snatch" phone thefts by scrotes on illegal motorbikes about 5 years ago, who baited the police because the police were not allowed to stop them for safety reasons if scrotes were not wearing motorbike helmets etc.
There are currently quite a lot of issues around motorbikers mugging cyclists for their bikes eg if a Brompton, and various routes eg in London which are no-go after dark.
Then they cracked the main problem by introducing guidelines for tactical contact for trained officers (eg knocking said scrotes off their motorbikes with a vehicle at point of minimum risk).
The feeling I have is that provincial forces have not followed suit. I've noticed small numbers of illegal motorbikers masked up here, but not deliberately reckless riding (I'm assuming drug distributors and copycats). Here we had all our PCSOs removed in around 2014-5 by Cameron and Co when they were slashing the police, and there has been less confidence around public space since, but serious problems have not yet developed.
The way that Musk is carrying on, both today abd yesterday, and then lapped up by the tabloids, the government wouldn't be totally unjustified I'm taking the sort of action that authoritarian regimes would take, and blocking twitter altogether.
This would probably be counter-pruductive, but he's currently a menace to the U.K.
Does it matter who Harris picks? Shapiro might or might not help in Pennsylvania, on the other hand he might dampen some of the Harris youth enthusiasm because of his strong support for Israel. Walz would at least put a white Christian male on the ticket, if that's worth anything.
I would choose whoever is going to be best at defending Harris from attacks on her being out of touch Californian liberal elite. Probably Walz.
It not only matters, it is so close if Harris picks Shapiro that may well give her Pennsylvania and the election, if not it could go Trump. Minnesota will vote Democrat regardless so Walz adds nothing and losing a bit in the popular vote if leftwingers go Green as Shapiro is too pro Israel and school choice is irrelevant.
In 2000, another very close election, had Gore picked Florida Senator Nelson rather than Lieberman he would probably have won the state and EC. Whereas if Bush had picked Pennsylvania governor Ridge rather than Cheney he would have won more clearly.
In 1960 too LBJ likely won Texas for JFK
I doubt Shapiro will win any more PA votes for the Democrats by being VP candidate. He is however an asset for the Dems in a crucial state for them to win. Harris' concern I suspect would be whether he campaigns as energetically if he's not on the ticket.
Shapiro will win votes in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh suburbs and commuter belt where he outpolled even Biden in his governor's race. That is where the state will be decided with inner city Philadelphia and Pittsburgh going Democrat regardless and rural and small town Pennsylvania going for Trump regardless
Presidential elections are not Governor elections. Your utter conviction that the VP pick makes any significant difference in their home state is not born out by historical evidence.
And of course the Harris campaign will have polling evidence not available to us. They'll have a far better idea if there's any significant difference between Shapiro and Walz, and in which of the battleground states.
It is as DM Andy's post in the last thread showed every VP nominee since 1996 got a bigger increase or lower fall in their ticket's vote in their home state relative to the last election than its national rise or fall with the exception of Harris herself in 2020 in California or Kemp in 1996 in NY
The way that Musk is carrying on, both today abd yesterday, and then lapped up by the tabloids, the government wouldn't be totally unjustified I'm taking the sort of action that authoritarian regimes would take, and blocking twitter altogether.
This would probably be counter-pruductive, but he's currently a menace to the U.K.
Blocking Twitter would probably increase national productivity.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Thank goodness we have a Labour government. Having watched Newsnight last night it's crystal clear that the last government have been fanning the flames of the idea and undesirability of 'others'.
It has encouraged an ugly group of moronic racists who though in a tiny minority with the wrong government could have flourished. I'm confident this government will not give an inch to these vile people and neither should they.
Had we not had an election when we did I have serious doubts that the last government would have have done this. They would at best have eqivocated as was seen by Andrea Jenkins last night.
Though the numbers are tiny make no mistake we have seen blackshirts on our streets. I've never seen cars stopped and people being asked if they're 'White British' or hotels with immigrants being invaded and set alight with immigrants inside and politicians like Andrea Jenkins finding equivalence.
How sure are you these riots would have happened if the tories had won?
If the Tories had won, there would be a very different profile to the rioters... Roger would have been building barricades!
As usual Roger talks a load of partisan shite. What is needed is the kind of policing used to break the miners strikes/protests and the political resolve that was shown by Thatcher. Get the hardest bastards in police forces across the country who are up for a fight, give them double time pay and get them to do raiding parties into the mob to arrest the ringleaders and then lock them up on every legitimate charge that can be brought against them.
The other angle that doesn't seem to be getting much coverage is the almost certain malign influence of outside governments and their connections with the far right. The website that claimed the child murderer was a Muslim is, surprise surprise, originally Russian owned. Hopefully Farage will condemn his pal in the Kremlin for undermining our democracy, but then perhaps not. I often wonder why.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
The White House appear not to understand that, for Ukraine to win, Russia must lose.
"Ukraine had the opportunity to destroy dozens of Russian aircraft with ATACMS missiles, but the U.S. prohibited their use, according to Forbes. In early summer, the Russian 47th Guards Air Regiment parked numerous Su-34 jets at the "Malyshevo" airbase, 160 km from the border. Ukraine requested permission from the U.S. to strike this base with ATACMS missiles, but Washington denied the request due to fears of escalation."
This is why Ukraine's continued drone developments, and support for their domestic military production, is so important. It's how they can win even if the White House are nervous about it.
Britain, and Europe, could do more to help with these things.
Keep them in the former army barracks and bibby stokholm. Must be cheaper than paying the rent of private landlords, who will no doubt charge them double what they normally would.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
Going through the list of options you can see the scale of the problem
While they may be a few former care homes empty the state of them will be such that conversion isn't easy and as for student accommodation there isn't enough of it in many places anyway and the idea that it can be repurposed is for the birds.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Be more efficient to get the relevant court system speeded up. The Tories were making noises about that.
Of course, it would be ironic to see rioters and boat people both get top tier treatment compared to the rest of us.
Yes, but did they do anything? My impression was that little was moving except the Rwanda vice-signalling.
Even Rishi understood that claiming to do things solved the problem 9 times out of 10 because no-one bothered to followup and see if what was promised actually happened.
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
Going through the list of options you can see the scale of the problem
While they may be a few former care homes empty the state of them will be such that conversion isn't easy and as for student accommodation there isn't enough of it in many places anyway and the idea that it can be repurposed is for the birds.
Perhaps one has to be of a certain political approach and assume that half of all unis are going to go broke.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
There is always the Brave New World scenario: science keeps us all youthful for as long as possible, then as soon as the first evidence of age and infirmity appears... well, it's tickets.
As a (nearly) 50 year old man, this scenario does not appeal to me.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
Going through the list of options you can see the scale of the problem
While they may be a few former care homes empty the state of them will be such that conversion isn't easy and as for student accommodation there isn't enough of it in many places anyway and the idea that it can be repurposed is for the birds.
Perhaps one has to be of a certain political approach and assume that half of all unis are going to go broke.
So what happens to the students at those Universities, they still need to finish their degrees.
Worth saying it's another massive problem that this Government is going to have to fix over the next year or so..
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
Going through the list of options you can see the scale of the problem
While they may be a few former care homes empty the state of them will be such that conversion isn't easy and as for student accommodation there isn't enough of it in many places anyway and the idea that it can be repurposed is for the birds.
Perhaps one has to be of a certain political approach and assume that half of all unis are going to go broke.
So what happens to the students at those Universities, they still need to finish their degrees.
Worth saying it's another massive problem that this Government is going to have to fix over the next year or so..
Oh, I agree entirely. It's however quite apparent that the right wing would love to see the universities trashed, and that tweet seems to make the prior assumption of something of the sort.
Probably just shite stirring, like everything said about the Labour administration's plans since 4 July it sometimes seems.
(But when you raise the point, there have been cases* where universities have closed departments with little notice, and students in mid-degree, IIRC, got moved over to another university willy-nilly. That is, however, quite different in magnitude from having the entire student body moved over.)
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Isn't that essentially what already been done with GP practices, which are private entities which contract with NHS England to provide services ? It's hardly an unalloyed success.
Some successful health services have primary care more closely aligned with, or even attached to hospital services. Others have 'polyclinics', separate from general hospitals, which provide specialist services, but which sometimes blur the line between hospital and clinic.
I'm not 100% convinced that the large scale structure, as opposed to how things are done within it, makes all that much difference. We need to look at health services which do particularly well (see, for instance, Taiwan), and work out why that is.
The UK has below-average health spending per person compared to peer countries. Health spending as a share of GDP (gross domestic product) was just below average in 2019 but rose to just above average in 2020 (the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, which of course had a significant impact on the UK’s economic performance and spending on health services). The UK lags behind other countries in its capital investment, and has substantially fewer key physical resources than many of its peers, including CT and MRI scanners and hospital beds. The UK has strikingly low levels of key clinical staff, including doctors and nurses, and is heavily reliant on foreign-trained staff. Remuneration for some clinical staff groups also appears to be less competitive in the UK than in peer countries.
And
For some measures of efficiency, the UK performs better than some other countries. For example, the UK spends less on administration (as a share of total health spending) than comparable countries. This is evidence of efficiency, but it is important to note that good standards of administration are necessary for a health care system to run smoothly.
Another area where the UK performs relatively well is providing universal health coverage with a low level of private spending. This may sound obvious to someone living in the UK who is used to an NHS free at the point of use, but it is worth highlighting, as this protection from cost is not afforded to people in many other countries. Relatively few people in the UK cannot pay medical bills or skipped medical visits because of the cost of care.
And...
Spending on health care increased substantially in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic. But despite this, spending per person remains lower than the average for our basket. This impacts on the patient experience. For example, although there is no objectively ‘ideal’ number of scanners, the UK has fewer CT and MRI scanners than any of the comparator countries, which could be a reason – alongside shortages of imaging staff – for why diagnostic waits in the UK are so high.
Another area where the UK is strikingly different to comparator countries is in staffing. The below chart shows fewer doctors and fewer nurses per 1,000 people than the average in our basket. While some countries do, for example, have fewer nurses, many counterbalance that by having more doctors. The UK is remarkable as it scores low on both. High vacancy rates and staff dissatisfaction show that the current number is insufficient.
The UK has higher avoidable mortality and treatable mortality rates than comparator countries. This is driven by below-average survival rates for many major cancers (including cancer of the breast, cervix, colon, rectum, lung and stomach), and poorer outcomes from heart attacks and strokes.
And, perhaps most interestingly...
There is little evidence that one individual country or model of health care system performs better than another across the board. Countries improve health care for their populations mainly by reforming their existing model of health care rather than adopting an alternative.
Which is why I advocate looking at what Taiwan does. Their approach to innovating within the system looks much superior to ours.
As an aside, the last time the Democrats chose a religious North Eastern Jew as the running mate to a youthful, but largely charisma free ex-VP, they lost the election... Narrowly.
History is essentially certain to repeat itself, so if Shapiro is the Democratic nominee, I expect it all to come down to hanging chads in Florida.
It is for a similar reason of coincidence that I first suggested Shapiro several weeks ago when VP's were first mentioned. I was walking down the street and I met an old friend who I hadn't seen for maybe 30 years and his name was (David) Shapiro!
Both choices are good ones. Harris Shapiro has a better ring to it than Harris Walz - but I think Walz would be marginally better in terms of broadening the ticket with minimum potential downside. Regardless, this is tracking to Harris over 50% and winning the PV by at least 5 points. Which means a comfortable margin in the EC.
I may have mentioned this before, but Paris is weirdly quiet. It’s almost like lockdown
I am sitting in a Pret staring down the Avenue de l’Opera and there are virtually no cars. At all. Deserted
August is the best time see Paris as all the Parisians are on holiday. Place is fairly empty but that also means more shops and restaurants are closed.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
There probably isn’t a better time to visit Paris than now. Right now. Its empty and cheap and sunny and it has a party atmosphere - but a kind of languid garden party with lots of kids with balloons
The tourists are outnumbered by the police and the “army”. They are out in force. So it all feels really safe
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
Buttigieg is the transport secretary who couldn't be bothered to visit the East Palestine rail disaster for three weeks.
And another of the liars who claimed Biden was capable of another term.
If you want to take on Vance then Andy Beshear would do a better job.
There probably isn’t a better time to visit Paris than now. Right now. Its empty and cheap and sunny and it has a party atmosphere - but a kind of languid garden party with lots of kids with balloons
The tourists are outnumbered by the police and the “army”. They are out in force. So it all feels really safe
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
Buttigieg is the transport secretary who couldn't be bothered to visit the East Palestine rail disaster for three weeks.
And another of the liars who claimed Biden was capable of another term.
If you want to take on Vance then Andy Beshear would do a better job.
He's the best communicator the Democrats have, and he's also - almost uniquely - always on Fox. It's very curious, in fact, that he keeps getting invited back, given how often he eats the presenters' lunches.
I grant you, he has been (generously) a very average Transportation Secretary.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
Buttigieg is the transport secretary who couldn't be bothered to visit the East Palestine rail disaster for three weeks.
And another of the liars who claimed Biden was capable of another term.
If you want to take on Vance then Andy Beshear would do a better job.
He's the best communicator the Democrats have, and he's also - almost uniquely - always on Fox. It's very curious, in fact, that he keeps getting invited back, given how often he eats the presenters' lunches.
I grant you, he has been (generously) a very average Transportation Secretary.
So all talk and little action plus a liar to boot.
Is Nick Clegg his role model ?
I don't see what he brings to the ticket that Harris doesn't.
A governor would provide more substance and some, much needed, out of DC experience and empathy.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
According to Michael Moore (a Michigander), Josh Shapiro has chosen badly on Gaza. He also points out in this interview that Michigan is vulnerable given the number of pro-Palestinian voters
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
Yes, that is a very good point re Shapiro and it is not only Michigan where that may cause problems - for example, in Wisconsin, his viewpoints are unlikely to go down well in a university town like Madison and that could also prove fatal to the Democrat chances in that state.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
I agree that Shapiro carries significant risk, and I suspect that the campaign's motto will be: First, Do No Harm.
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
Buttigieg is the transport secretary who couldn't be bothered to visit the East Palestine rail disaster for three weeks.
And another of the liars who claimed Biden was capable of another term.
If you want to take on Vance then Andy Beshear would do a better job.
He's the best communicator the Democrats have, and he's also - almost uniquely - always on Fox. It's very curious, in fact, that he keeps getting invited back, given how often he eats the presenters' lunches.
I grant you, he has been (generously) a very average Transportation Secretary.
So all talk and little action plus a liar to boot.
Is Nick Clegg his role model ?
I don't see what he brings to the ticket that Harris doesn't.
A governor would provide more substance and some, much needed, out of DC experience and empathy.
I don't think Nick Clegg was a particularly good communicator: his first performance standing in for DC at Prime Minister's questions was a particular low point.
Buttigieg is, I think, a very effective and articulate communicator. And when the top of your ticket lacks... charisma... then adding it in the VP role is no bad thing.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think Starmer can and will push the narrative that the riots were orchestrated by far right actors. I also think it will be the subject of the inquiries once things have settled down, not social exclusion, rightly or wrongly. As there's politics in everything, there's a risk for the Conservatives of being associated with the far right agenda if they go down the whataboutery route instead of clearly repudiating the agenda. Signs right now the Tories will fall into the trap. Only Patel seems to be aware of the danger.
"Recent changes show that positive asylum decisions can be made much, much faster than in the past, which is great news for everyone. It’s just not that hard to grant asylum to an Afghan, Eritrean, Sudanese or Syrian given they have a 98% grant rate or more. All officials need to do is to establish nationality, conduct security checks and issue the grant letter. The Home Office initially messed even that up by issuing long, complex forms in English only and failing to fund any help to fill them in. Absurdly, after we warned them it was a bad idea, they decided to blame the lawyers. Again. Officials can and should learn from these mistakes."
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
If they procure, it will usually be a year to get a decent sized HMO (6 or more rooms) up and running - just on the property practicalities and routine paperwork.
If existing are purchased (say if LLs pull out of the sector) it could be quicker.
I don't see much headroom in the student sector.
A huge issue for existing LLs is that a 6 Bed HMO will be £100-150k on top of buying the property to renovate and prepare for the market, so no LL is going to put that sort of investment at risk by potentially questionable groups of tenants.
I may have mentioned this before, but Paris is weirdly quiet. It’s almost like lockdown
I am sitting in a Pret staring down the Avenue de l’Opera and there are virtually no cars. At all. Deserted
It's August you dense ignoramus. What sort of travel writer are you that doesn't know the Parisians leave en masse every summer?
I would also point out another place that was weirdly quiet during the Olympics: London.
Although TFL would tell you that during 2012 Olympics there were actually more journeys on their network than the same period the year before. It was more that the centre of gravity shifted East. Makes sense - if you were going to London, or Paris, during the olympics you are doing it to watch the olympics - not catch a show in the west end or visit the Louvre.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think Starmer can and will push the narrative that the riots were orchestrated by far right actors. I also think it will be the subject of the inquiries once things have settled down, not social exclusion, rightly or wrongly. As there's politics in everything, there's a risk for the Conservatives of being associated with the far right agenda if they go down the whataboutery route instead of clearly repudiating the agenda. Signs right now the Tories will fall into the trap. Only Patel seems to be aware of the danger.
So you're suggesting it's all a matter of cynical politics? And it's perfectly easy to avoid the 'trap.' The Tories just need to say they condemn all organised violence on all sides which clearly repudiates the far right.
I think it would be helpful for the courts/journos to release screenshots of the offending text.
Our legal system is unavoidably complex and baffling to most normal people, but simple linking of the crime in question, with the sentence and the perpetrator would serve the wider public good, imo, in situations like this.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
isn't the idea that Asians can't be far right racists a bit racialist?
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think Starmer can and will push the narrative that the riots were orchestrated by far right actors. I also think it will be the subject of the inquiries once things have settled down, not social exclusion, rightly or wrongly. As there's politics in everything, there's a risk for the Conservatives of being associated with the far right agenda if they go down the whataboutery route instead of clearly repudiating the agenda. Signs right now the Tories will fall into the trap. Only Patel seems to be aware of the danger.
So you're suggesting it's all a matter of cynical politics? And it's perfectly easy to avoid the 'trap.' The Tories just need to say they condemn all organised violence on all sides which clearly repudiates the far right.
I'm not. The orchestration of the riots by far right actors with the implicit encouragement by Nigel Farage and the equivocation of the Conservatives is real enough. My only cynicism is that the Conservatives will do the right thing, or even the thing that's in their interest.
I may have mentioned this before, but Paris is weirdly quiet. It’s almost like lockdown
I am sitting in a Pret staring down the Avenue de l’Opera and there are virtually no cars. At all. Deserted
It's August you dense ignoramus. What sort of travel writer are you that doesn't know the Parisians leave en masse every summer?
I would also point out another place that was weirdly quiet during the Olympics: London.
Unlike now. I’m just back from a trip to Whitehall to meet a SpAd (first time since the election) and am delighted to report that Westminster is buzzing with happy family groups doing their London tourism: lining up to take photos of themselves holding a phone in an old fashioned phone box, doing selfies with Big Ben, discussing where to go for lunch and generally looking cheerful.
No balaclava’d gangs of thugs smashing stuff here, no atmosphere of tension and fear. There may have been foreign news coverage of the riots but it’s nothing like the sort of attention the recent rioting in Paris got.
Tomorrow they’ll be heading off to Harry Potter studios or boarding the East Coast main line up to York and Edinburgh, or getting Chiltern rail to Bicester village then Oxford. All mercifully free of thuggery.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think Starmer can and will push the narrative that the riots were orchestrated by far right actors. I also think it will be the subject of the inquiries once things have settled down, not social exclusion, rightly or wrongly. As there's politics in everything, there's a risk for the Conservatives of being associated with the far right agenda if they go down the whataboutery route instead of clearly repudiating the agenda. Signs right now the Tories will fall into the trap. Only Patel seems to be aware of the danger.
So you're suggesting it's all a matter of cynical politics? And it's perfectly easy to avoid the 'trap.' The Tories just need to say they condemn all organised violence on all sides which clearly repudiates the far right.
I'm not. The orchestration of the riots by far right actors with the implicit encouragement by Nigel Farage and the equivocation of the Conservatives is real enough. My only cynicism is that the Conservatives will do the right thing, or even the thing that's in their interest.
Implicit encouragement of Nigel Farage? What did he say, I may have missed it? Equivocation of the Conservatives? Are they unsure whether or not to support the riots? Really? I've seen some idiot called Lord Gower make a t*** of himself but no-one else.
I think it would be helpful for the courts/journos to release screenshots of the offending text.
Our legal system is unavoidably complex and baffling to most normal people, but simple linking of the crime in question, with the sentence and the perpetrator would serve the wider public good, imo, in situations like this.
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people who say "i'm not racist but", don't know what racism is. Even on Pb many don't understand why targeting Muslims can be racist.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
Keep them in the former army barracks and bibby stokholm. Must be cheaper than paying the rent of private landlords, who will no doubt charge them double what they normally would.
A fairly basic principle for me is that I would *never* rent a property to a Council, Housing Association or Public Body for any purpose at all, because I know that they will not care for my property and will use it for the bad tenants from their mix- and it will require something between a major and very major refurb when I get it back.
That's just how the system works.
The only exception would be for a property that is ready to have 30-40k spend on it, if they did that, so I can just salt my 30-40k away for use when the property is empty next time.
It's a deal I tend to reach with dog-tenants, once I have checked out the dog and the owner for sanity - let them be responsible for the small refurb (eg decorating, carpets or click-fit floor tiles) one normally does after say a 5 year tenant, and offer a slightly lower rent. That has worked for me so far, as it benefits both sides.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
If they procure, it will usually be a year to get a decent sized HMO (6 or more rooms) up and running - just on the property practicalities and routine paperwork.
If existing are purchased (say if LLs pull out of the sector) it could be quicker.
I don't see much headroom in the student sector.
A huge issue for existing LLs is that a 6 Bed HMO will be £100-150k on top of buying the property to renovate and prepare for the market, so no LL is going to put that sort of investment at risk by potentially questionable groups of tenants.
If the operation really is going to be called 'Operation Scatter' then that might imply smaller properties.
The HMO limit in my part of the world is five or more people AND two or more families. There are a number of two/three/four bedders out there that would come under that headcount threshold and thus be free of local democratic council pushback.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I have the T-Line four speed, and recently rode it down to Brighton. I even made it up Ditchling Beacon (albeit, I would have really liked some lower gears!). My only fault with the T-Line is tyre/inner tube combo, which gave me two punctures on the route.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
isn't the idea that Asians can't be far right racists a bit racialist?
Of course they can be far right racists, but be sensible, I said 'almost certainly not far right racists' and clearly I meant in the current circumstances. Do you really think they are far right racists or do you think they are people reacting violently to the circumstances created by far right racists.
That's a strange one, and there's a lot of ill-informed knee-jerking on that thread.
I'm not exactly clear where they would find swathes of empty properties.
Bid 10% above the market and price familes out.
It's a bit more complex than that ,if you know the rental market.
The tweet said 'procurement'. I assumed - possibly wrongly - that meant they were going to buy the properties rather than rent them from their existing owners.
If they procure, it will usually be a year to get a decent sized HMO (6 or more rooms) up and running - just on the property practicalities and routine paperwork.
If existing are purchased (say if LLs pull out of the sector) it could be quicker.
I don't see much headroom in the student sector.
A huge issue for existing LLs is that a 6 Bed HMO will be £100-150k on top of buying the property to renovate and prepare for the market, so no LL is going to put that sort of investment at risk by potentially questionable groups of tenants.
On the other hand, if we stop taking so many foreign students, maybe we can put the asylum seekers up in the accommodation they would have used.
If the Labour government have decided they need to get tough on a sudden surge of violent and anti social behaviour, with rapid justice and tough custodial sentences....will they carry that on once it calms down? There's a gang of scum that ride around Loughborough Town centre, in broad daylight, on stolen scooters and motorbikes, with 2 or 3 of them on one bike in balaclavas and hoodies, weaving in and out of traffic and riding the wrong way down roads and kicking cars as they pass. They even comment on the multiple posts in the town Facebook groups about them. I've been waiting at traffic lights with a police car behind me, when the scum have driven past. They were gone before the copper had woken up. Cracking down on this sort of shit would improve the town immeasurably.
That's an interesting one, and I think is down to the local PCC and Chief Constable not giving it priority, plus resources etc.
The Met had huge problems with "snatch" phone thefts by scrotes on illegal motorbikes about 5 years ago, who baited the police because the police were not allowed to stop them for safety reasons if scrotes were not wearing motorbike helmets etc.
There are currently quite a lot of issues around motorbikers mugging cyclists for their bikes eg if a Brompton, and various routes eg in London which are no-go after dark.
Then they cracked the main problem by introducing guidelines for tactical contact for trained officers (eg knocking said scrotes off their motorbikes with a vehicle at point of minimum risk).
The feeling I have is that provincial forces have not followed suit. I've noticed small numbers of illegal motorbikers masked up here, but not deliberately reckless riding (I'm assuming drug distributors and copycats). Here we had all our PCSOs removed in around 2014-5 by Cameron and Co when they were slashing the police, and there has been less confidence around public space since, but serious problems have not yet developed.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
There are times when whataboutism is not only inappropriate it actually only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about
Quick (off topic) question:
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
Brompton are unique in the bicycle industry for having a product which is so clearly the best in its segment. Nothing is remotely competitive.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
I have the T-Line four speed, and recently rode it down to Brighton. I even made it up Ditchling Beacon (albeit, I would have really liked some lower gears!). My only fault with the T-Line is tyre/inner tube combo, which gave me two punctures on the route.
How easy was it to respoke the wheels?
I think that quite a few of us on here may have Brommies. I have a 6-speeder and may be getting a second. I am waiting for an E-kit to arrive.
Compared to my other E-folder (which is an Axon Rides which is not far short in quality but has no suspension block and larger, lower pressure tyres) the Brompton has quite a harsh ride - it's like going from a French to a German car.
Tyres seem to make quite a differences. My Brommie came with Marathon Pluses, which in cycling groups are known as "Tractor Tyres".
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Starmer commented on the lines you suggest [source: Guardian yesterday]: 'Asked whether he thought everyone taking part in the riots were “far-right thugs”, he said: “If you target people because of the colour of their skin or their face then that is far right and I’m prepared to say so. But it doesn’t matter what apparent motivation there is. This is violence, not protest. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is.”'
Sorry but it still isn't clear he is including people who are attacking those with white skin. Have non-whites attacking whites ever been referred to as far right in the past? I don't think many believe believe that is what he meant.
No violence is acceptable and he made that very clear in his last 3 sentences, but to pretend this was not caused by and is predominantly far right racist thugs is whataboutery of the first order. Asians attacking white people is almost certainly not far right racists (obviously). It is still wrong and the full force of the law should come down on them, although you might reflect on whether it would be happening at all in the first place if the right wing thugs hadn't started rioting.
isn't the idea that Asians can't be far right racists a bit racialist?
Of course they can be far right racists, but be sensible, I said 'almost certainly not far right racists' and clearly I meant in the current circumstances. Do you really think they are far right racists or do you think they are people reacting violently to the circumstances created by far right racists.
Anyone who thinks the Asian thugs in these circumstances are far right racists needs their head examining.
I think anyone with any sense at all can see the government is overspending (as, of course, the last government did, this is not a party political point).
Current spending really needs to be cut to both reduce the deficit and to give headroom for more investment and capital expenditure to drive future growth. Reeves has a hell of a job on her hands trying to balance this and the Labour party membership who were encouraged to think that somehow there was more money to spend on nice things than the Tories would admit.
They shackled themselves to the Triple Lock too. It's impossible to end.
There is scope to spend a lot of money better, but very little room to manoeuvre when so many options were ruled out.
Let's hope they dont waste more money by paying Danegeld to our unreliable GPs.
Why reward failure ?
I am not a GP, but the GP dispute is an odd one. Essentially the GPs are asking for a greater share of NHS spending to go into Primary Care, as 90% of NHS contacts occur there and the percentage of NHS funding spent there has been declining for years, to 8% of the budget. A GP gets less per annum per patient than the cost of a single Emergency Dept visit.
It's odd because this is Streetings policy too! So shouldn't be a hard one to resolve. GP services are patchy and under incredible strain, particularly in the inner cities and does need investment. Better GP services are the core of a preventative health care strategy.
It will be interesting to see how Streeting fares. He has made the claim the NHS isnt working and needs reform. To what level he hast said but he will probably getting the backing of most people that something needs to change.
However the people who will determine his fate are the medical profession and at the moment they are a bit militant - probably the UKs best union. Reeves has tried to buy good will and who knows maybe she has, but Streeting has an uphill task to change things and deserves all the support he can muster.
I think the NHS is simply too large to manage
Split it into independent verticals (GP, acute, convalescence, social care) and run them separately
Trouble is you then get the various verticals trying to cost shift to the other ones. Which is what’s happening now with social care & clinical care of course: Local councils have to pay for social care & are unable / unwilling to provide enough resulting in a cost shift to the NHS which is unable to shift people out of clinical care into social care, tying up resources that could be used for other patients.
It seems to me that introducing even more vertically integrated splits in care provision is not going to improve this situation.
Possibly taking social care away from councils, where it has to fight with everything else for funding, and setting up a dedicated agency might help, if it was funded adequately. But there lies the rub - you can solve most problems with enough money, but is the money going to be there?
I think that some of the problems of funding social care are actually not that hard to fix, nor would the fix necessarily be terribly unpopular.
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
Is that not rather close to the proposals that nearly sunk Theresa May - a cap on what was left rather than what was spent?
Yes, but: a) That's pretty much what we have now. b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
As an insurance person, I must admit it's a tricky product to underwrite, in particular regarding managing the expectations of the insured. "If I spend my own money on this, will I get better care?" would be the first question I would expect someone to ask.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
Mmm, I would probably save or insure to have my potential end of life care be better quality than whatever the legal minimum standard is, but I don't see much point in doing either just to have my estate after I die have a higher value...
Fair enough. Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Should we not condemn the violence by people preaching the gospel of St Tommy? And Tommy would claim to be of the right. That's not to say violence from the other side should get a free pass.
I fear it may not be mentioned on the mainstream media but there are some unpleasant videos online of gangs of Asian looking men attacking single white men. Nick Lowdes of Hope Not Hate spread potentially inflammatory disinformation about events in Middlesbrough.
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
I think Starmer can and will push the narrative that the riots were orchestrated by far right actors. I also think it will be the subject of the inquiries once things have settled down, not social exclusion, rightly or wrongly. As there's politics in everything, there's a risk for the Conservatives of being associated with the far right agenda if they go down the whataboutery route instead of clearly repudiating the agenda. Signs right now the Tories will fall into the trap. Only Patel seems to be aware of the danger.
So you're suggesting it's all a matter of cynical politics? And it's perfectly easy to avoid the 'trap.' The Tories just need to say they condemn all organised violence on all sides which clearly repudiates the far right.
It's not cynical politics it's a factual narrative, the nutjobs with their swastika tattoos setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels full of people, are wearing an emblem that denotes their political allegiance.
The vast majority of Conservative MPs and Conservative voters are outraged. They are not the problem.
But then there are "mainstream" politician like Farage and Anderson who are making hay with their alternative facts. Although some Conservatives have a culpability too. Braverman and Jenrick have based their political futures on othering immigrants. A new range of clowns like Nick Timothy are also using their genius to promote the narrative that "multiculturalism doesn't work"- a self fulfilling narrative. These people are cynical. Likewise Corbyn's fellow travellers including recently excluded Labour MPs who might justify attacks on synagogues.
Comments
None of the mooted VP candidates here are obvious duffers, so it likely doesn't matter much who gets picked.
Both parties can make cases for and against universal welfare for pensioners and above inflation pay deals for doctors etc. At the margins they went for the arrangements that benefited their respective constituencies.
Personally I think we have no choice but to allow the grant the x0,000 longest waiting migrants, settlement and the right to work. Nothing else is going to fix the mess...
As I said though Lieberman was from CT which was going for Gore anyway, had he picked Florida Senator Nelson he would likely have narrowly won the state and the election
Ideally, across society we want people to largely fund their own social care. The obvious way to do this is via insurances. So here is the Prole's fix for this:
Firstly, the system stays broadly "as is". You must pay for your own care, till you are down to your last £20k. However, the government permits people to buy insurance.
The insurance deal is - you insure a value of your choice (eg. £150k). If you need social care, the insurance company ponies up the cost up to the amount insured. Then the state helps itself to your assets to pay for your care, until you are down to your last £20k, plus the amount insured. So insure £150k, the maximum the state can take you down to is £170k. Then the state picks up the rest of the tab.
Allow the insurance premium (+interest) to be settled by the estate after death if people wish. Ditto for the cost of any self funded care.
Ideally add in a financial incentive to purchase insurance at the same time as taking the pension lump sum, and we've basically solved the problem of social care needs being a lottery, utterly wiping out some people's estates whilst leaving others untouched. If people want to take the risk they can, but assuming insurance rates are sane, I'd expect most people would be taking a 20%ish hit on their estates, rather than 1 in 5 pretty much losing the lot. (Obviously, the larger the sum insured, the lower the percentage cost - if you insure for £1million, the odds of the insurers having to pay out the full £1million are rather lower than a full payout of an insured £50k).
Obviously this doesn't solve the problem of people needing more care than they have the money to fund - unfortunately there is no way out of this bit which doesn't involve paying for it via general taxation.
The Met had huge problems with "snatch" phone thefts by scrotes on illegal motorbikes about 5 years ago, who baited the police because the police were not allowed to stop them for safety reasons if scrotes were not wearing motorbike helmets etc.
There are currently quite a lot of issues around motorbikers mugging cyclists for their bikes eg if a Brompton, and various routes eg in London which are no-go after dark.
Then they cracked the main problem by introducing guidelines for tactical contact for trained officers (eg knocking said scrotes off their motorbikes with a vehicle at point of minimum risk).
The feeling I have is that provincial forces have not followed suit. I've noticed small numbers of illegal motorbikers masked up here, but not deliberately reckless riding (I'm assuming drug distributors and copycats). Here we had all our PCSOs removed in around 2014-5 by Cameron and Co when they were slashing the police, and there has been less confidence around public space since, but serious problems have not yet developed.
This would probably be counter-pruductive, but he's currently a menace to the U.K.
Musk is a worry currently.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-britain-so-ugly/
The other angle that doesn't seem to be getting much coverage is the almost certain malign influence of outside governments and their connections with the far right. The website that claimed the child murderer was a Muslim is, surprise surprise, originally Russian owned. Hopefully Farage will condemn his pal in the Kremlin for undermining our democracy, but then perhaps not. I often wonder why.
As you know I am lairy of battleground state theory: you have to consider the effect on all the states, not just one. Everybody is focussing on Shapiro to get Pennsylvania and missing that he may lose Michigan
https://youtu.be/GnZ7DaYfeyo?si=ermGBlfMCx90deaQ&t=303
Let anyone waiting more than 1-2 months work to pay their own way.
Neither are particularly difficult to sort out.
Paying more money doesn't solve the immediate issue that you can't house everyone - all it would do is push rental costs even higher...
I am sitting in a Pret staring down the Avenue de l’Opera and there are virtually no cars. At all. Deserted
"Ukraine had the opportunity to destroy dozens of Russian aircraft with ATACMS missiles, but the U.S. prohibited their use, according to Forbes. In early summer, the Russian 47th Guards Air Regiment parked numerous Su-34 jets at the "Malyshevo" airbase, 160 km from the border. Ukraine requested permission from the U.S. to strike this base with ATACMS missiles, but Washington denied the request due to fears of escalation."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/05/ukraine-had-a-chance-to-blow-up-russias-best-warplanes-on-the-tarmac-the-white-house-said-no-and-now-its-too-late/
This is why Ukraine's continued drone developments, and support for their domestic military production, is so important. It's how they can win even if the White House are nervous about it.
Britain, and Europe, could do more to help with these things.
This is just terrible news. Does the UK want to foment more ethnic clashes?
a) That's pretty much what we have now.
b) There was no proposal to insure against it.
The problem is at the moment, if I took out insurance to cover some of my care costs, then once the insurance money has gone, the state will spend all my money anyway. So to retain my estate I've got to insure all my potential care costs - which I probably can't afford. The trick in my proposal is that people only have to insure an amount to cover the size of their estate, which is much more affordable, whilst yielding the same cash input as would be achieved by making people self fund their care directly.
While they may be a few former care homes empty the state of them will be such that conversion isn't easy and as for student accommodation there isn't enough of it in many places anyway and the idea that it can be repurposed is for the birds.
At this stage, and given the reaction to her candidacy, Harris is likely to be thinking "what pick does not risk significant blowback?" On that measure, Kelly may be the 'safest' of the three.
Alternatively, she therefore may decide that it is best to go with the one who can amplify her message. If that is the case, Walz may be the pick if she decides that firing up the base is the way to go.
However, in either of the two above scenarios, Shapiro would seem the riskiest option
As a (nearly) 50 year old man, this scenario does not appeal to me.
Worth saying it's another massive problem that this Government is going to have to fix over the next year or so..
The lowest risk candidate has to be Mark Kelly: popular, moderate, and a great backstory.
But I must admit, I would roll the dice if I were Kamala, and would pick Buttigieg, because he would absolutely wipe the floor with Vance.
Probably just shite stirring, like everything said about the Labour administration's plans since 4 July it sometimes seems.
(But when you raise the point, there have been cases* where universities have closed departments with little notice, and students in mid-degree, IIRC, got moved over to another university willy-nilly. That is, however, quite different in magnitude from having the entire student body moved over.)
*Edit: in the 1990s, anyway.
Macdonalds is quite chic in France. My daughter used to live in Sr Germain en Laye and said you couldnt get in to the local MacD on a weekend,
Keir Starmer cannot stick to the explicitly 'far right' narrative and will have to condemn all violence and thuggery if he hasn't done so already.
Their approach to innovating within the system looks much superior to ours.
I would also think that you would need to - as with pensions - make this tax deductible to encourage people to insure themselves. Otherwise, how is this different to simply saving for your later life care? (With the difference that those who save can potentially pass on their savings to their loved ones.)
The tourists are outnumbered by the police and the “army”. They are out in force. So it all feels really safe
And another of the liars who claimed Biden was capable of another term.
If you want to take on Vance then Andy Beshear would do a better job.
This weekend, he died in custody.
1/14🧵The devastating story of an artist and activist who just couldn't keep silent,/I>
https://x.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1820496363664089169
I grant you, he has been (generously) a very average Transportation Secretary.
Is Nick Clegg his role model ?
I don't see what he brings to the ticket that Harris doesn't.
A governor would provide more substance and some, much needed, out of DC experience and empathy.
Buttigieg is, I think, a very effective and articulate communicator. And when the top of your ticket lacks... charisma... then adding it in the VP role is no bad thing.
Is your username a reference to Brompton bicycles? I ask because I own (and love) two of them.
The Crown Prosecution Service says a man has been charged with using threatening words of behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred online.
Jordan Parlour, 28, posted on Facebook between 1-5th August.
CPS keen to show online activity is being pursued too.
https://x.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1820760140158488860
https://genius.com/The-clash-white-riot-lyrics
"Recent changes show that positive asylum decisions can be made much, much faster than in the past, which is great news for everyone. It’s just not that hard to grant asylum to an Afghan, Eritrean, Sudanese or Syrian given they have a 98% grant rate or more. All officials need to do is to establish nationality, conduct security checks and issue the grant letter. The Home Office initially messed even that up by issuing long, complex forms in English only and failing to fund any help to fill them in. Absurdly, after we warned them it was a bad idea, they decided to blame the lawyers. Again. Officials can and should learn from these mistakes."
BREAKING: Twenty-eight people will appear at court on Tuesday following disorder in Middlesbrough on Sunday, police said
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1820759373158777034
If existing are purchased (say if LLs pull out of the sector) it could be quicker.
I don't see much headroom in the student sector.
A huge issue for existing LLs is that a 6 Bed HMO will be £100-150k on top of buying the property to renovate and prepare for the market, so no LL is going to put that sort of investment at risk by potentially questionable groups of tenants.
Our legal system is unavoidably complex and baffling to most normal people, but simple linking of the crime in question, with the sentence and the perpetrator would serve the wider public good, imo, in situations like this.
I have a T-Line One which is great but the stock wheels are machine built and you can feel it. I respoked both of mine with cut down and rethreaded DT Swiss Revolite spokes to get the necessary lateral stiffness.
Oddly Mick Jones is related to Grant Shapps - tis a small world.
No balaclava’d gangs of thugs smashing stuff here, no atmosphere of tension and fear. There may have been foreign news coverage of the riots but it’s nothing like the sort of attention the recent rioting in Paris got.
Tomorrow they’ll be heading off to Harry Potter studios or boarding the East Coast main line up to York and Edinburgh, or getting Chiltern rail to Bicester village then Oxford. All mercifully free of thuggery.
That's just how the system works.
The only exception would be for a property that is ready to have 30-40k spend on it, if they did that, so I can just salt my 30-40k away for use when the property is empty next time.
It's a deal I tend to reach with dog-tenants, once I have checked out the dog and the owner for sanity - let them be responsible for the small refurb (eg decorating, carpets or click-fit floor tiles) one normally does after say a 5 year tenant, and offer a slightly lower rent. That has worked for me so far, as it benefits both sides.
The HMO limit in my part of the world is five or more people AND two or more families. There are a number of two/three/four bedders out there that would come under that headcount threshold and thus be free of local democratic council pushback.
How easy was it to respoke the wheels?
Compared to my other E-folder (which is an Axon Rides which is not far short in quality but has no suspension block and larger, lower pressure tyres) the Brompton has quite a harsh ride - it's like going from a French to a German car.
Tyres seem to make quite a differences. My Brommie came with Marathon Pluses, which in cycling groups are known as "Tractor Tyres".
$1m of cocaine blown onto Florida Keys by ‘catastrophic’ Storm Debby
Packages reported to police by ‘good Samaritan’ as hurricane made landfall on Gulf Coast and is expected to reach South Carolina by Thursday
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/06/storm-debby-florida-hurricane-flooding-south-carolina/
Much of the angst around making people pay for social care is around "it's not fair that my estate gets wiped out if I get dementia, but not it I die of heart disease".
My suggestion is basically a fix for that. If you don't care about your estate, that's fine - no need to insure, but it might get wiped out, and if so, you can't complain.
And yes, the insurance probably needs to be tax deducible to help encourage uptake.
And the big difference to saving for your care needs - maybe 20% of people will need expensive care. If you save, you've got hold 100% of that cost. If you insure, hopefully you pay 20%ish of that cost, and then you don't have to worry about it. It's all about finding a way to fix the unfairness that via genetic lottery some people get wiped out by care costs and some don't, but without just dumping the whole problem into the tax system.
The vast majority of Conservative MPs and Conservative voters are outraged. They are not the problem.
But then there are "mainstream" politician like Farage and Anderson who are making hay with their alternative facts. Although some Conservatives have a culpability too. Braverman and Jenrick have based their political futures on othering immigrants. A new range of clowns like Nick Timothy are also using their genius to promote the narrative that "multiculturalism doesn't work"- a self fulfilling narrative. These people are cynical. Likewise Corbyn's fellow travellers including recently excluded Labour MPs who might justify attacks on synagogues.
Insane that this is allowed to be published on here.
https://x.com/smithsimonmen/status/1820767627641315708?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g