Early days, but there does need to be a voice for the formerly Corbynite left made homeless by timid yet authoritarian Starmerism.
It isn't any easier for Labour to recover these voters than for the Tories to pick up Reform voters.
I'm reflecting on how the Conservatives can recover Reform voters.
I think Reform are trying to groom the former "anti-Corbyn" (one of the big drivers of votes in the Red Wall in 2019 along with Boris and Brexit) vote, via disappointment with Tories in Govt, into becoming convinced anti-mainstream fringe voters, including some near conspiracy theories (eg Two Tier Policing, War on Cars, merging into WEF, deep state, political courts, and the rest) and some values of the far right.
When they become convinced fringe voters, they will not be listening to anyone else; I'm seeing some of that on Lee Anderson's social media channels.
One Conservative challenge is how to get those voters back, and keep Reform as a fringe party.
I think Reforms next major push will be for Local Councillors in the seats they hold; I think we'll get some here if the Ashfield Indepents start to fade if Zadrozny gets convicted. In Ashfield we won't know that until 2027.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
Considering updating the Morris Dancer Party manifesto to criminalise putting milk in first.
In a democracy, people should be allowed to put the milk in first, as well as making tea correctly, with the tea in first. Hell, in a democracy they should even be allowed to put lemon in, or, horror of horrors, use green tea!
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
I agree nuclear has these environmental advantages but also note it creates a waste product that's about the most toxic substance we deal with industrially. Handling that waste is a massive headache, and very costly.
Isn’t every aspect of nuclear power production very costly? Why would a country rich in other energy sources choose it? I note Norway hasn’t bothered with it.
Not if your power stations are already built. Which is another reason the German decision was plain nuts. The cost of fuel is minimal in relation to everything else.
And if you get S Korea to build you plants, they're quite competitive from scratch.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
Say you capped rent increases at 5% once per year I suspect the majority of rentals would see an increase of 5% once every year which is more than the average over the last decade or two (albeit possibly less than last 3 years in lots of places).
Ending no fault evictions is the biggest legislative change needed, not price controls. Enforcement of existing laws is also needed more than new laws here.
Rent control that works only works when the market is near surplus of property - when there is little or no need for rent control!
This occurs in a number of places where rent controls were a historic reaction to the big push (as a result of the mechanisation of agriculture) to the cities.
When this slackened off and population increase slowed down, the rent controls remained.
New York is a classic of the version where rent control was used to try and hod prices down, despite a severe shortage of housing. Many books have been written on this disaster.
It all comes back to creating a surplus of housing. In the housing markets that work, at any one time, 5%+ of properties are empty. In much of the UK, it is a fraction of 1%.
A problem in the UK, generally, is the systemic belief that unused capacity is wastage. Every hospital bed must have 100% occupancy. Every classroom 100% full.
It is an elementary feature of Operations Research that any system running at 99% is on the verge of collapse. What do people perceive about public services?
It’s taken 40 years of incremental efficiency savings cuts to get to our current state. It could take another 40 years to get back to sensible levels of capacity. It’s certainly not going to happen in only five years.
It also requires a change of policy and attitude.
I'd characterise Rent Control as a tragedy of the commons, in that the current generation of Ts (who are the young professionals ones running groups such as Generation Rent), get the benefit of past investment in quality property whilst benefiting from lower rents which disincentivise future investment. So future generations of tenants have a poorer choice in a smaller market.
We saw the effect in 2015 with George Osbornes reform - he made it far less economic to have a mortgage on a rental property, since the money spent on the business finance was not regarded as part of business expenses, so investment came to a screeching halt. And ever since it has been far more difficult to generate a return.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
“Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%.”
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
I don't entirely buy this 'underclass" theory for the riots. Plenty of the arrested are clearly not from an underclass.
Yes, though I'd put it more strongly - I don't buy it at all, and find that whole narrative pretty offensive. The idea that there's huge support in the 'underclass' for the far right, and that the underclass/dispossessed are more racist than other segments of society, is nonsense.
If you look at the convictions so far, evidence suggests that they are a broad spectrum - yes, some are dispossessed, but many are skilled workers or self-employed 'business' people. If they have anything in common, it's that they are largely white working class. But, at the same time, the vast majority of the white working class have no time for the racist rioters.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
OK but then it's more like Nu3million which doesn't work as well for the conspiracy theories because a lot of people know some of those guys and reasonably hope to join them.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
Even the 'mostly' question quite clearly lumps all the events in as one - given the phrasing of the question I'm amazed anyone said that they were 'mostly protests'. The Yougov is a great deal richer in actual information about peoples' current sentiments, but then Yougov is a proper polling organisation, not a soft left pressure group.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
Consider this.
You fuck up at work. To the extent that you kill someone.
- Do you face losing your career (unable to get a job), being charged with a crime? - Do you face being (at worst) asked to take a golden parachute, move to another job complete with a golden hello, better money and benefits? And any prosecution melts away into the mists of "not in the public interest"
We live in a world where they had to setup a special register of NHS managers who have been struck off. So that they don't automatically pop up again in another hospital.
The 90cc zwei Takt Dernys are quite hard to ride (outside a velodrome) as they have a high CoG and a lot of F-R weight bias. Even I couldn't wheelie one.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
“Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%.”
Source: YouGov
Our SKS fans would prefer to look at the comforting words of "More In Common" telling them how fully behind the adoneoidal one we all are*.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
If you're close enough, why not get together socially one on one? He'll probably tell you any challenges he's been having and whether there's any support you can offer. I don’t see what good his wife telling you or not telling you would do.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
And you'll find that the "underclass" themselves are more pissed off than most given it's their streets, police officers and public services that came under attack.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
So I should at least talk to his wife? I am genuinely skewered by this dilemmas, and also genuinely worried for him
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Definitely talk to the wife imho, if you know her well enough to ring her etc.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
OK but then it's more like Nu3million which doesn't work as well for the conspiracy theories because a lot of people know some of those guys and reasonably hope to join them.
Lots want to join. But actually ascending to the lofty heights of No Responsibility..... That's rare.
Mind you, it is funny to watch some lower level managers who think they have reached that level, when they fuck up.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
It could be all manner of issues, work and life stress, domestic strife, although it could be health. You've done your duty and had a word to no avail. Mind your business?
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
Common Purpose, the WEF and aligned organisations are very clear and public in their workings and purposes. To dismiss the idea of an elite 'working to protext each other' when such ideas were based around the secret meetings of the Bilderberg group or the masons etc. was acceptable. To do so now is wilful ignorance.
No, ignoring the competitive spirit of these people is wilful ignorance. Most of them won't care two hoots for any of their peers who aren't family or close friends. Indeed those at the top are often sharp-elbowed in the extreme.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
So, AIUI from your reply and from elsewhere, the environmental benefits from nuclear are that the actual power generation is carbon-free and the power output and reliability are significantly better than solar and wind (particularly in the UK). Correct me if that’s not a fair summary.
On the down side, nuclear power generates vast amounts of toxic waste that carries huge environmental and economic costs when it comes to storage and disposal. As with fossil fuel powered energy generation, nuclear is also reliant on raw materials that, again, carry huge environmental costs in their extraction, transportation and storage… and [sweeping generalisation klaxon] much of the supply is sourced from areas of the world where less consideration is given to environmental concerns.
(History has also shown us that supposedly safe nuclear power is only safe until unforeseen and unlikely but not entirely unpredictable events occur and suddenly it isn’t safe anymore. And the environmental consequences of safety failures in nuclear power are beyond catastrophic.)
I’m not persuaded that the benefits of nuclear outweigh the costs (and risks) and, for me, I think we should ideally be eschewing it entirely in favour of a truly green energy strategy focused on:
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Definitely talk to the wife imho, if you know her well enough to ring her etc.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
A year ago, my elder brother (older than your friend, 71) had exactly the symptoms you describe - lost a few stone, persistent cough for months, since the start of 2023. He didn't take enough action. Last October he finally went for a scan, but by then it was too late. He died of cancer last January.
So, I'd check with his wife - has he sought help? Has he had a CT/MRI scan? Don't worry about it - expressing concern isn't intrusive.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Definitely talk to the wife imho, if you know her well enough to ring her etc.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
That last point, indeed.
At that age, "leaving things to get better" is rank stupidity.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
If you're close enough, why not get together socially one on one? He'll probably tell you any challenges he's been having and whether there's any support you can offer. I don’t see what good his wife telling you or not telling you would do.
We were one on one for an hour when I asked about his cough. Other friends came later 🤷🏼♂️
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Definitely talk to the wife imho, if you know her well enough to ring her etc.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
Trouble is, persistent coughs are now ten-a-penny since Covid. Sudden weight loss, on the other hand...
Rents controls are terrible policy, brilliant politics. The number of households renting has increased by 28% under the Tories - a redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. That's why people are pissed, and why they might vote Green regardless of the economics.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
You can get further hints of the disaster this is shaping to be in the rise of salience of immigration - now peoples' number 1 issue. That doesn't bode well for SKS when boat arrivals are off the scale and he shitcanned Rwanda without an alternative. As far as I can see, any 'positive' take on this is pretty much people that already supported the Government whistling a happy tune - which is exactly what it sounds like on PB.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
It could be all manner of issues, work and life stress, domestic strife, although it could be health. You've done your duty and had a word to no avail. Mind your business?
I'd vote for 'speak to his wife'. That's what I'd do if it were a close friend of mine.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
A year ago, my elder brother (older than your friend, 71) had exactly the symptoms you describe - lost a few stone, persistent cough for months, since the start of 2023. He didn't take enough action. Last October he finally went for a scan, but by then it was too late. He died of cancer last January.
So, I'd check with his wife - has he sought help? Has he had a CT/MRI scan? Don't worry about it - expressing concern isn't intrusive.
Thankyou. That is my instinct. Just a brief text to his wife. What harm can it do - and it might do good. I know her well and she won’t be offended
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
If you're close enough, why not get together socially one on one? He'll probably tell you any challenges he's been having and whether there's any support you can offer. I don’t see what good his wife telling you or not telling you would do.
We were one on one for an hour when I asked about his cough. Other friends came later 🤷🏼♂️
Ah OK. Maybe back to plan A then and speak to his wife.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
A year ago, my elder brother (older than your friend, 71) had exactly the symptoms you describe - lost a few stone, persistent cough for months, since the start of 2023. He didn't take enough action. Last October he finally went for a scan, but by then it was too late. He died of cancer last January.
So, I'd check with his wife - has he sought help? Has he had a CT/MRI scan? Don't worry about it - expressing concern isn't intrusive.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
You can get further hints of the disaster this is shaping to be in the rise of salience of immigration - now peoples' number 1 issue. That doesn't bode well for SKS when boat arrivals are off the scale and he shitcanned Rwanda without an alternative. As far as I can see, any 'positive' take on this is pretty much people that already supported the Government whistling a happy tune - which is exactly what it sounds like on PB.
Then I sympathise with your profound sight impairment.
Russian doctrine on use of tactical nukes comes into play?
I doubt it, since even if desperate Putin is not insane, but keep an eye on the papers for any snippets about Nato training flights, as happened last time the Kremlin tried nuclear sabre-rattling.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
You can get further hints of the disaster this is shaping to be in the rise of salience of immigration - now peoples' number 1 issue. That doesn't bode well for SKS when boat arrivals are off the scale and he shitcanned Rwanda without an alternative. As far as I can see, any 'positive' take on this is pretty much people that already supported the Government whistling a happy tune - which is exactly what it sounds like on PB.
Then I sympathise with your profound sight impairment.
I'm obviously not reading the Guardian enough to get a true picture of current events.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
A year ago, my elder brother (older than your friend, 71) had exactly the symptoms you describe - lost a few stone, persistent cough for months, since the start of 2023. He didn't take enough action. Last October he finally went for a scan, but by then it was too late. He died of cancer last January.
So, I'd check with his wife - has he sought help? Has he had a CT/MRI scan? Don't worry about it - expressing concern isn't intrusive.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
Yes, I get that. I'm not saying we have anything close to a fair society but I don't buy this NU10K closed shop cabal stuff.
It always used to make me laugh when we had the regular 'we need to de-layer' calls from top management... it was never their layer or the next one down (the people they knew) who were going to be de-layered, it was usually the very bottom layer, the people who actually managed the workforce.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls....please could someone ...explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work...
I am asking this with an open mind.
Without rent controls
People want to rent accommodation, and the lower the price the more people will want it. This is demand.
People want to provide accommodation to rent, and the higher the price the more people will want it. This is supply.
The price varies up and down until the number of people who want to rent equals the number of people who want to provide rent.
With rent controls
Because the rent is too low, the number of people who want to rent exceeds the number of people who want to provide accommodation to rent. The gap either persists or is made up by rotten/unmaintained accommodation or rotten/violent landlords.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
You can get further hints of the disaster this is shaping to be in the rise of salience of immigration - now peoples' number 1 issue. That doesn't bode well for SKS when boat arrivals are off the scale and he shitcanned Rwanda without an alternative. As far as I can see, any 'positive' take on this is pretty much people that already supported the Government whistling a happy tune - which is exactly what it sounds like on PB.
Then I sympathise with your profound sight impairment.
I'm obviously not reading the Guardian enough to get a true picture of current events.
The number of boat people could double and yet immigration come down massively just but leaving in place the changes to legal migration rules the Tories introduced in the past year.
Has there been a worse policy anywhere in Europe this century, than the German decision to shut down nuclear in favour of using mostly Russian gas for electricity generation?
Not only did it lead to a rise in carbon emissions, but also left the continent’s largest economy totally dependent on an adversary, with the inevitable gas price spike once that adversary became a little too, well, adversary.
It wasn't a good decision, but it is renewables that have taken up the slack. Since the decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2011, electricity generation from gas has remained roughly constant and generation from coal has fallen, while generation from renewables has risen enormously. With nuclear, of course, use of fossil fuels could have been reduced even more.
Are you sure (I haven’t checked recently) but part of the issue was Germany switched to lignite (“dirty”) coal
I have checked recently, and Germany's use of both anthracite and lignite has fallen since 2011, but obviously not by as much as it would have if they'd kept nuclear power.
Please post a link
According to this report (Jan 23) hard coal/lignite accounts for 35% of German power production, more than the entire renewables industry
The linked data source says 25.6% of German energy production was lignite or hard coal in 2023.
I think that means it is falling very rapidly, and the 35% number is 2022 or 2021. I think it's fair to call it Ukraine War blip, but an embarrassing one; they have closed 15 coal fired plants this year as the LNG infra comes on stream.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Definitely talk to the wife imho, if you know her well enough to ring her etc.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
He was a heavy smoker and now vapes 24/7
Oh. Madness not to get it checked out I would say.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Definitely talk to the wife imho, if you know her well enough to ring her etc.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
He was a heavy smoker and now vapes 24/7
Then definitely talk to him and/or his wife. If he's smoked heavily for many years it may of course be too late, and he knows it!
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
Yes, I get that. I'm not saying we have anything close to a fair society but I don't buy this NU10K closed shop cabal stuff.
It always used to make me laugh when we had the regular 'we need to de-layer' calls from top management... it was never their layer or the next one down (the people they knew) who were going to be de-layered, it was usually the very bottom layer, the people who actually managed the workforce.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
Even the 'mostly' question quite clearly lumps all the events in as one - given the phrasing of the question I'm amazed anyone said that they were 'mostly protests'. The Yougov is a great deal richer in actual information about peoples' current sentiments, but then Yougov is a proper polling organisation, not a soft left pressure group.
The More in Common poll was 2000 people polled between 5th and 7th August. It is a BPC registered pollster, not "a soft left pressure group".
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
You can get further hints of the disaster this is shaping to be in the rise of salience of immigration - now peoples' number 1 issue. That doesn't bode well for SKS when boat arrivals are off the scale and he shitcanned Rwanda without an alternative. As far as I can see, any 'positive' take on this is pretty much people that already supported the Government whistling a happy tune - which is exactly what it sounds like on PB.
Then I sympathise with your profound sight impairment.
I'm obviously not reading the Guardian enough to get a true picture of current events.
Such as the mass deportations to Rwanda which they chose not to report.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Talk to his wife
Worst-case scenario: you feel slightly socially embarrassed and she is slightly offended
Best-case scenario: you save your friend from a horrible death by cancer.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
(Not an SKS fan, but will nonetheless try to answer in good faith).
Rent controls are a distortion to the market, and encourage bad behaviours from both landlords and tenants. Properties subject to rent control are usually poorly looked after on both sides, and landlords always want the tenant to leave because they get to refurb and rent at a higher rate. Tenants are often stuck in place, unable to move because they’d have to pay market rate elsewhere, affecting the mobility of labour and the makeup of families. Rents on new contracts need to take into account that they’re not going to be allowed to rise over time, so are more expensive than would be the case in a free market.
Nuclear power is good for the environment because it mostly replaces power generation from the combustion of fossil fuels, with their associated carbon emissions. Nuclear plants don’t emit CO2 in operation, and can generate a lot of power for their physical size when compared to wind and solar farms.
So, AIUI from your reply and from elsewhere, the environmental benefits from nuclear are that the actual power generation is carbon-free and the power output and reliability are significantly better than solar and wind (particularly in the UK). Correct me if that’s not a fair summary.
On the down side, nuclear power generates vast amounts of toxic waste that carries huge environmental and economic costs when it comes to storage and disposal. As with fossil fuel powered energy generation, nuclear is also reliant on raw materials that, again, carry huge environmental costs in their extraction, transportation and storage… and [sweeping generalisation klaxon] much of the supply is sourced from areas of the world where less consideration is given to environmental concerns.
(History has also shown us that supposedly safe nuclear power is only safe until unforeseen and unlikely but not entirely unpredictable events occur and suddenly it isn’t safe anymore. And the environmental consequences of safety failures in nuclear power are beyond catastrophic.)
I’m not persuaded that the benefits of nuclear outweigh the costs (and risks) and, for me, I think we should ideally be eschewing it entirely in favour of a truly green energy strategy focused on:
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Talk to his wife
Worst-case scenario: you feel slightly socially embarrassed and she is slightly offended
Best-case scenario: you save your friend from a horrible death by cancer.
Bit of a slam-dunk, really.
Maybe the excuse/reason could include "haven't seen him for some time, really startled at the change".
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
Even the 'mostly' question quite clearly lumps all the events in as one - given the phrasing of the question I'm amazed anyone said that they were 'mostly protests'. The Yougov is a great deal richer in actual information about peoples' current sentiments, but then Yougov is a proper polling organisation, not a soft left pressure group.
The More in Common poll was 2000 people polled between 5th and 7th August. It is a BPC registered pollster, not "a soft left pressure group".
The questions determine the answers. I am seeing nothing in these questions but an attempt to use the widespread and understandable revulsion toward destructive mobs of hooligans, to elicit general disapproval of the 'protests' that are lumped in with the riots. Yougov asked questions that actually got under the hood of people's attitudes. This polling doesn't do that. I would suggest it doesn’t want to. But it could just be not very good polling.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
Even the 'mostly' question quite clearly lumps all the events in as one - given the phrasing of the question I'm amazed anyone said that they were 'mostly protests'. The Yougov is a great deal richer in actual information about peoples' current sentiments, but then Yougov is a proper polling organisation, not a soft left pressure group.
The More in Common poll was 2000 people polled between 5th and 7th August. It is a BPC registered pollster, not "a soft left pressure group".
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls....please could someone ...explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work...
I am asking this with an open mind.
Without rent controls
People want to rent accommodation, and the lower the price the more people will want it. This is demand.
People want to provide accommodation to rent, and the higher the price the more people will want it. This is supply.
The price varies up and down until the number of people who want to rent equals the number of people who want to provide rent.
With rent controls
Because the rent is too low, the number of people who want to rent exceeds the number of people who want to provide accommodation to rent. The gap either persists or is made up by rotten/unmaintained accommodation or rotten/violent landlords.
If the public sector builds more housing to rent, it has all round benefits far preferable to rent control - which has been tried numerous times, and failed everyone but the lucky few who've managed to hang on to sub market priced lets.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
Yes, I get that. I'm not saying we have anything close to a fair society but I don't buy this NU10K closed shop cabal stuff.
It always used to make me laugh when we had the regular 'we need to de-layer' calls from top management... it was never their layer or the next one down (the people they knew) who were going to be de-layered, it was usually the very bottom layer, the people who actually managed the workforce.
Your second paragraph contradicts the first
Nonsense! People look after themselves = yes. Cabal = no.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Talk to his wife
Worst-case scenario: you feel slightly socially embarrassed and she is slightly offended
Best-case scenario: you save your friend from a horrible death by cancer.
Bit of a slam-dunk, really.
Maybe the excuse/reason could include "haven't seen him for some time, really startled at the change".
I hadn’t seen him for two months and I was startled by the weight loss. The cough was secondary - tho concerning
I think PB has convinced me. Brief text to his wife, keep it as light as possible
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
The broader British public is less mealy-mouthed in their opinion of the rioters:
Looks very much that Starmer called it correctly.
You don't state your sources, but the Yougov polling very clearly showed a widespread sympathy with 'protests', and a clearly ability amongst those polled to distinguish between those rioting (who they had no sympathy with) and those protesting, in a way in which SKS's pronouncements have absolutely failed to do. That polling question deliberately lumps them in as a single group, and gets the response it sets out to get.
The graphic is from More in Common and labelled as such. It is from this twitter thread, which has further detail.
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
Even the 'mostly' question quite clearly lumps all the events in as one - given the phrasing of the question I'm amazed anyone said that they were 'mostly protests'. The Yougov is a great deal richer in actual information about peoples' current sentiments, but then Yougov is a proper polling organisation, not a soft left pressure group.
The More in Common poll was 2000 people polled between 5th and 7th August. It is a BPC registered pollster, not "a soft left pressure group".
LG might like to be aware that the Mods really do not like dissing of BPC members, unintentional as it may be in this case.
Given that Matthew Goodwin is a BPC pollster, and he was widely and potentially libellously accused of moral turpitude here in response to a GE poll to zero response, I feel that my mild criticisms of More In Common are well within acceptable boundaries.
As I’m instinctively in favour of rent controls and against nuclear power, please could someone (SKS fan or otherwise) explain, patiently, objectively, and without resorting to insults:
- why rent controls don’t work, and - how nuclear power is good for the environment?
I am asking this with an open mind.
For simplicity assume that rents are completely fixed.
Each year the real value of that rental income goes down
Consequently no one will invest in expanding / improving the housing stock so it declines in aggregate quality.
Furthermore when owners can, they take houses out of the stock for alternative uses reducing the pool of available housing
Additionally it reduces social mobility because moving house can trigger a rent review - this has all sorts of economic impacts
Thank you!
So, in summary, my understanding of freezing rents (as of now) is that, while they provide short-to-medium-term affordability benefits for existing tenants (but impede their mobility in the longer term), this extreme form of rent control also leads to degradation and decrease of available housing stock.
Is there not an argument to be made for moderate forms of rent control (eg setting limits to the value and frequency of rent increases) that protect tenants while not disincentivising investment in rental stock?
These things are always a trade off
Rent controls of any sort have a negative impact as above. Where the balance between the short term benefits to a single group of current renters vs the impact on future renters and the housing stock should be is a political judgement
Utterly off thread, but I have been apalled by the prevalence of the grocer's apostrophe in the Dutch-speaking world. It's everywhere. But apparently it is linguistically correct in Dutch - it's there to preserve the pronunciation of the word. I wonder if it once performed a similar role in English?
Utterly off thread, but I have been apalled by the prevalence of the grocer's apostrophe in the Dutch-speaking world. It's everywhere. But apparently it is linguistically correct in Dutch - it's there to preserve the pronunciation of the word. I wonder if it once performed a similar role in English?
As someone who is an 8th Dutch, please accept my apologie's.
But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.
Many years ago I met a Scot at a wedding, we became really good friends but this was our initial conversation
James: I cannot place your accent, where are you from?
Me: I am a Northerner
James: Nah, you're not from Aberdeen
Me: No, I'm originally from Sheffield
James: Oh so you're a Midlander because Yorkshire is in the middle of Britain
Quite right too. Some of us are *real* Northerners.
Sheffield is NOT in the middle of Britain; it's some way into the North.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Talk to his wife
Worst-case scenario: you feel slightly socially embarrassed and she is slightly offended
Best-case scenario: you save your friend from a horrible death by cancer.
Bit of a slam-dunk, really.
Maybe the excuse/reason could include "haven't seen him for some time, really startled at the change".
I hadn’t seen him for two months and I was startled by the weight loss. The cough was secondary - tho concerning
I think PB has convinced me. Brief text to his wife, keep it as light as possible
Thanks for all the advice
You'll know how to communicate best, but I think a call might be better. Texts come with no context and can often result in miscommunication when they're about important stuff.
But that would mean admitting that Kendal is the centre of Britain (which it is, more or less) and that Manchester is in the poncey south. See? Can't have it both ways.
Many years ago I met a Scot at a wedding, we became really good friends but this was our initial conversation
James: I cannot place your accent, where are you from?
Me: I am a Northerner
James: Nah, you're not from Aberdeen
Me: No, I'm originally from Sheffield
James: Oh so you're a Midlander because Yorkshire is in the middle of Britain
Quite right too. Some of us are *real* Northerners.
Sheffield is NOT in the middle of Britain; it's some way into the North.
Pffft.
ISTR the geographical middle of Britain is somewhere near Haltwhistle, Northumberland.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
Yes, I get that. I'm not saying we have anything close to a fair society but I don't buy this NU10K closed shop cabal stuff.
It always used to make me laugh when we had the regular 'we need to de-layer' calls from top management... it was never their layer or the next one down (the people they knew) who were going to be de-layered, it was usually the very bottom layer, the people who actually managed the workforce.
Indeed.
Or open plan offices.
The point is that there shouldn’t be a magic level above which accountability ceases.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Wack him over the head with a rolling pin and drag him to the doctor for a check of his lungs.
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
Definitely talk to the wife imho, if you know her well enough to ring her etc.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
He was a heavy smoker and now vapes 24/7
Then definitely talk to him and/or his wife. If he's smoked heavily for many years it may of course be too late, and he knows it!
Or not. Some of the newer cancer treatments are very effective in some lung cancers. If caught in reasonable time, it's not the automatic death sentence it was a decade or so back.
There's far more incentive not to ignore it these days.
To be fair, Las Vegas has about 60x as many people in it as Billings, Montana
What is Trump doing in Montana though? Harris is presumably fund raising and was doing a tour of Nevada and Arizona which are in play and sliding her way. Montana? It's weird, to choose a word.
Yes, I was wondering about that too.
There are three possible explanations I can think of:
(1) This is the consequence of a fixed schedule. Trump's rallies were decided upon before Biden dropped out of the race, and at that time, it didn't seem like Trump needed to do too much because people would be voting against the incumbent. Indeed, keeping out the way with rallies in safe states seemed like a sensible option.
(2) Trump is retreating into his comfort zone. He doesn't want to go to places where there will be anything other than adulation, and Montana is about as red as they come.
(3) After the assassination attempt, Trump wants to be in places where he feels safe. Billings, Montana is such a place.
The thing is, I don't really buy any of these explanations. I think campaigns regularly change schedules to throw off assassins and to go where there is the greatest need for votes. And I think - if Trump just wanted adulation - he could do a rally at a megachurch in Texas or Alabama or wherever. Finally... fear? I'm not sure I buy that either.
What am I missing? Or is it simply that Trump is making all the decisions, rather than a professional campaigner manager, and he just isn't that aware of where matters? I simply don't get it.
Trump had a private meeting and needed a rally to justify charging the campaign for the costs of his travel?
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
Sorry to be blunt Malmsebury, but your NU10K bollocks is simply another weird conspiracy theory.
Sure, there are people who most of us would see as part of an 'elite' but:
Is there about 10k people in the 'elite'? Who knows, entirely depends on your viewpoint and definition. Are they 'New'? Some will be, but many are from long established dynasties. Do they all work together to protect each other? Definitely not. Do they all think alike about the 'underclass'? Definitely not.
It's all a load of invented bollocks.
It's a caricature, but it's not without a slice of truth to it. Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
Yes, I get that. I'm not saying we have anything close to a fair society but I don't buy this NU10K closed shop cabal stuff.
It always used to make me laugh when we had the regular 'we need to de-layer' calls from top management... it was never their layer or the next one down (the people they knew) who were going to be de-layered, it was usually the very bottom layer, the people who actually managed the workforce.
Indeed.
Or open plan offices.
The point is that there shouldn’t be a magic level above which accountability ceases.
Totally agree. And yes, 'open plan offices are much better' (for everyone else).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
At a local political level here in Newham, the Momentum supporters, having been expelled from Labour, have formed their own Newham Independent group (it's not registered as a political party to my knowledge and those who stood under its banner in July were simply Independent candidates). They. along with the Greens, form the opposition to Labour on Newham Council (section 114 notice coming soon apparently).
In East Ham, the "Newham" Independent got just under 18% of the vote while the Green vote went from 1.6% to 11.2% beating the Conservatives (who had been second in every East Ham election since the year dot) by 350 votes into fourth place.
Similar happened in West Ham & Beckton whereas in other parts of Inner east and south London such as Greenwich, Woolwich and Lewisham, the Greens finished a clear second in front of both the LDs and the Conservatives.
Across London as a whole, the Green vote rose from 3% to 10% just behind the LDs (11%). At the 2022 locals, the Greens polled 12% in the capital (LDs 14%) but it wouldn't surprise me if the Greens finished third in London in 2026 - as to how that will translate in seats, I have no clue as to the strength or otherwise of their local organisation. The recent by elections in Beckton and Little Ilford weren't good for the Greens but I've no clue as to whether the Newham Independents will be able to call on the strength of vote in 2026 they could in 2024 (albeit down on 2023).
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
I don't entirely buy this 'underclass" theory for the riots. Plenty of the arrested are clearly not from an underclass.
Yes, though I'd put it more strongly - I don't buy it at all, and find that whole narrative pretty offensive. The idea that there's huge support in the 'underclass' for the far right, and that the underclass/dispossessed are more racist than other segments of society, is nonsense.
If you look at the convictions so far, evidence suggests that they are a broad spectrum - yes, some are dispossessed, but many are skilled workers or self-employed 'business' people. If they have anything in common, it's that they are largely white working class. But, at the same time, the vast majority of the white working class have no time for the racist rioters.
What I also find crass and patronising is the idea that the main reason we need to improve the lot of the white working class is to stop them committing racially aggravated violence.
I thought it was supposed to be the Left that had contempt for these people?
The Dutch are going to beat GB in the medal table, just saying.
GB are going to get 65 medals but only 14 gold.
That will be the worst ratio since 1996.
Interestingly the target was 50 to 70 medals but it seems without a target for golds.
It's almost certain we will finish 3rd on total medals.
However as referenced above and by myself and others on here previously has been our inability to close out so many events with so many very close second places.
And NED have now overtaken us in the 'proper' medal table ranked by gold on effectively the last event. Congratulations to them an excellent performance.
Overall we have done ok and there have been a number of tremendous performances but too many near misses
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Unsurprisingly the state saw off this challenge to its authority. However hubris has set in. There is one case where a judge has remanded someone for just being present at the scene of some disorder, another where someone got a 2 year sentence for 'gesticulating' at the police. There is various other stuff, like one where a guy in the midlands went on an ill advised monologue about free speech on Twitter, in doing so retweeting another dodgy tweet, and ended up with 38 months in jail, he has 3 kids and grew up in care etc, they are losing their council house.
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
Rents controls are terrible policy, brilliant politics. The number of households renting has increased by 28% under the Tories - a redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. That's why people are pissed, and why they might vote Green regardless of the economics.
Why would such a redistribution make people drunk?
I mean, that hasn’t stopped a number of government programs in the past. Several of which led to praise and promotion for the people in charge. The Nimrod MRA4 was an awesome success on that metric - jobs in the right places, promotions, honours.
If people actually wanted to cut *illegal* immigration massively, killing the black economy would be a start. Which is actually fairly simple. But that would break too many vested interests.
I see Margaret Hodge has commented Labour shouldn't be frightened to talk about immigration.
Quite right.
There's a rule (Stodge's Seventh Political Law) which states "If you don't want to talk about a subject, someone else will. If you talk about the subject first, you can frame the conversation, if someone else does, they will."
At the moment, the immigration debate is being framed squarely by those who are "concerned" or "worried" or "anxious". No one is coming about with the positive argument for immigration (there is a strong economic one) or even the "we might not like it but we need it" argument.
There are echoes of the 2016 debate which was quickly controlled by those voices hostile to the EU - as we've often argued, those who wanted to offer a positive message either wouldn't or couldn't using words which worked for the public.
The Dutch are going to beat GB in the medal table, just saying.
GB are going to get 65 medals but only 14 gold.
That will be the worst ratio since 1996.
Interestingly the target was 50 to 70 medals but it seems without a target for golds.
And now we understand why.
If there were a special prize for stacking up bronze medals, the British team would be away and clear in second place, behind only the Americans.
The rowers and the horsey people will be pretty pleased and athletics wasn't too far off, but beyond that rather a lot has gone wrong. There will be nervous sweating over lottery money in many governing bodies.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Unsurprisingly the state saw off this challenge to its authority. However hubris has set in. There is one case where a judge has remanded someone for just being present at the scene of some disorder, another where someone got a 2 year sentence for 'gesticulating' at the police. There is various other stuff, like one where a guy in the midlands went on an ill advised monologue about free speech on Twitter, in doing so retweeting another dodgy tweet, and ended up with 38 months in jail, he has 3 kids and grew up in care etc, they are losing their council house.
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
Anyone who has been sentenced has pleaded guilty.
If someone thinks they are innocent then they have at worst been remanded in custody.
Here’s a piquant moral dilemma that I am facing. Maybe PB can help
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
Described the symptoms to my father.
You've got to launch an intervention.
The unexplained weight loss is a big red flag with a cough.
With the big C you need to catch it early.
At worst you'll be seen as a busybody and at best a lifesaver.
I see Margaret Hodge has commented Labour shouldn't be frightened to talk about immigration.
Quite right.
There's a rule (Stodge's Seventh Political Law) which states "If you don't want to talk about a subject, someone else will. If you talk about the subject first, you can frame the conversation, if someone else does, they will."
At the moment, the immigration debate is being framed squarely by those who are "concerned" or "worried" or "anxious". No one is coming about with the positive argument for immigration (there is a strong economic one) or even the "we might not like it but we need it" argument.
There are echoes of the 2016 debate which was quickly controlled by those voices hostile to the EU - as we've often argued, those who wanted to offer a positive message either wouldn't or couldn't using words which worked for the public.
It has been a major discussion my entire life. The idea that talking about immigration has somehow been suppressed it total bollocks.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
In between the usual nonsense, there is somethings in there.
The extreme dislike for the "under class" by the NU10K is one - they see them as an alien, unwanted presence. Which is darkly amusing, in a way.
I don't entirely buy this 'underclass" theory for the riots. Plenty of the arrested are clearly not from an underclass.
I have a friend who is a Marine and was based in Portsmouth. He said that it was quite fashionable for those looking for a fight to pick an argument with a group of Marines in a put just to show how hard they were. My Marine friend said that the Police were so used to it that when they arrived they would automatically let all Marines go and arrest all civvies involved in the fight.
Anyway, the thing was, a lot of the men who did that were professionals during the week and did it as a sort of hobby during the weekend. Stupidity and aggression are not perfectly correlated and some otherwise intelligent people just like a mindless fight.
As opposed to people on this site, who enjoy much nerdier and more intellectual combat.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Just found this article in UnHerd which gives a good explanation of what's going on imo. (I assume it's written from what a left-winger would regard as a Tory point of view).
Comments
I think Reform are trying to groom the former "anti-Corbyn" (one of the big drivers of votes in the Red Wall in 2019 along with Boris and Brexit) vote, via disappointment with Tories in Govt, into becoming convinced anti-mainstream fringe voters, including some near conspiracy theories (eg Two Tier Policing, War on Cars, merging into WEF, deep state, political courts, and the rest) and some values of the far right.
When they become convinced fringe voters, they will not be listening to anyone else; I'm seeing some of that on Lee Anderson's social media channels.
One Conservative challenge is how to get those voters back, and keep Reform as a fringe party.
I think Reforms next major push will be for Local Councillors in the seats they hold; I think we'll get some here if the Ashfield Indepents start to fade if Zadrozny gets convicted. In Ashfield we won't know that until 2027.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1822547842172371115?t=kndpYHLQHolNPa16rKzaYQ&s=19
Firstly, most Briton's see the events as riots rather than as protests, overall 74% say they are riots 14% protests and 4% something else. Reform voters are the most likely to describe them as protests (34%).
Only 14% of the country say that the people participating in the riots speak for people like them - compared to 86% who say they do not. Again Reform voters tend to be outliers here, although a majority still say they do not speak for people like them.
Overall 87% of the public think that those involved in clean up after riots reflect real Britain, not those who are involved in the riots, again Reform UK voters are outliers, but nearly 70% still believe those involved in clean up are the real Britain.
Perhaps the most sobering chart from our research - 53% of the country now say that the UK is unsafe for Muslims, up from 25% in May. That compares to 24% of the public who say the UK is unsafe for them personally.
Which is another reason the German decision was plain nuts.
The cost of fuel is minimal in relation to everything else.
And if you get S Korea to build you plants, they're quite competitive from scratch.
We saw the effect in 2015 with George Osbornes reform - he made it far less economic to have a mortgage on a rental property, since the money spent on the business finance was not regarded as part of business expenses, so investment came to a screeching halt. And ever since it has been far more difficult to generate a return.
A futile middle aged anarchic anger, allied with the sense he’d really like a nice cup of tea and a chocolate Digestive
Source: YouGov
If you look at the convictions so far, evidence suggests that they are a broad spectrum - yes, some are dispossessed, but many are skilled workers or self-employed 'business' people. If they have anything in common, it's that they are largely white working class. But, at the same time, the vast majority of the white working class have no time for the racist rioters.
The Telegraph says that we can all do 52mph down the Victoria Embankment on our commuting bikes in our work togs on treaded tyres.
Once you're part of the managerial class, you're protected in ways simply not true of the plebs.
There are several PBers it more closely suggests, but I'm too polite to say whom.
After all, it's not a criminal offence to support Manchester United either.
You fuck up at work. To the extent that you kill someone.
- Do you face losing your career (unable to get a job), being charged with a crime?
- Do you face being (at worst) asked to take a golden parachute, move to another job complete with a golden hello, better money and benefits? And any prosecution melts away into the mists of "not in the public interest"
We live in a world where they had to setup a special register of NHS managers who have been struck off. So that they don't automatically pop up again in another hospital.
*Don't ask for VI.
Last night I met a few old friends for drinks. One of them - to put it bluntly - looked rather ill. Frail, suddenly quite thin, a persistent cough. At his age - mid 50s, one might worry
I didn’t say much apart from “you’ve got a bit of a cough” and he waved it away. Fair enough. Didn’t want to doom the evening by pressing him with medical questions
But I am concerned. He’s a dear old friend. I’ve considered talking to his wife “has X had himself checked out, he looks poorly”? But is even that intrusive? What if X knows he is sick and wants to ignore it or keep it private - as many do?
What’s the protocol?
A friend waited too long and now has all the cancers.
I believe a cough lasting more than something like three weeks should defo be checked out.
Mind you, it is funny to watch some lower level managers who think they have reached that level, when they fuck up.
On the down side, nuclear power generates vast amounts of toxic waste that carries huge environmental and economic costs when it comes to storage and disposal. As with fossil fuel powered energy generation, nuclear is also reliant on raw materials that, again, carry huge environmental costs in their extraction, transportation and storage… and [sweeping generalisation klaxon] much of the supply is sourced from areas of the world where less consideration is given to environmental concerns.
(History has also shown us that supposedly safe nuclear power is only safe until unforeseen and unlikely but not entirely unpredictable events occur and suddenly it isn’t safe anymore. And the environmental consequences of safety failures in nuclear power are beyond catastrophic.)
I’m not persuaded that the benefits of nuclear outweigh the costs (and risks) and, for me, I think we should ideally be eschewing it entirely in favour of a truly green energy strategy focused on:
- conservation/demand reduction
- microgeneration
- renewables.
(So much for keeping an open mind!)
So, I'd check with his wife - has he sought help? Has he had a CT/MRI scan? Don't worry about it - expressing concern isn't intrusive.
At that age, "leaving things to get better" is rank stupidity.
Russian doctrine on use of tactical nukes comes into play?
It always used to make me laugh when we had the regular 'we need to de-layer' calls from top management... it was never their layer or the next one down (the people they knew) who were going to be de-layered, it was usually the very bottom layer, the people who actually managed the workforce.
- People want to rent accommodation, and the lower the price the more people will want it. This is demand.
- People want to provide accommodation to rent, and the higher the price the more people will want it. This is supply.
- The price varies up and down until the number of people who want to rent equals the number of people who want to provide rent.
With rent controlsRwanda was a massive and expensive red-herring.
The linked data source says 25.6% of German energy production was lignite or hard coal in 2023.
I think that means it is falling very rapidly, and the 35% number is 2022 or 2021. I think it's fair to call it Ukraine War blip, but an embarrassing one; they have closed 15 coal fired plants this year as the LNG infra comes on stream.
https://www.power-technology.com/news/germany-shuts-15-coal-fired-power-plants/
If he's smoked heavily for many years it may of course be too late, and he knows it!
The poll detail is here:
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/what-do-britons-really-think-about-the-riots/
- Worst-case scenario: you feel slightly socially embarrassed and she is slightly offended
- Best-case scenario: you save your friend from a horrible death by cancer.
Bit of a slam-dunk, really.Certainly the closure of German nuclear in favour of coal almost certainly will have killed people.
This study estimates over a thousand annually, alongside the considerable economic costs.
https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/media/2020/January/study-examines-costs-closing-nuclear-plants-germany
The questions determine the answers. I am seeing nothing in these questions but an attempt to use the widespread and understandable revulsion toward destructive mobs of hooligans, to elicit general disapproval of the 'protests' that are lumped in with the riots. Yougov asked questions that actually got under the hood of people's attitudes. This polling doesn't do that. I would suggest it doesn’t want to. But it could just be not very good polling.
I think PB has convinced me. Brief text to his wife, keep it as light as possible
Thanks for all the advice
Rent controls of any sort have a negative impact as above. Where the balance between the short term benefits to a single group of current renters vs the impact on future renters and the housing stock should be is a political judgement
Pffft.
Or open plan offices.
The point is that there shouldn’t be a magic level above which accountability ceases.
Some of the newer cancer treatments are very effective in some lung cancers. If caught in reasonable time, it's not the automatic death sentence it was a decade or so back.
There's far more incentive not to ignore it these days.
That will be the worst ratio since 1996.
Interestingly the target was 50 to 70 medals but it seems without a target for golds.
Also, a grown man with a man bag, what the actual fucking fuck?
At a local political level here in Newham, the Momentum supporters, having been expelled from Labour, have formed their own Newham Independent group (it's not registered as a political party to my knowledge and those who stood under its banner in July were simply Independent candidates). They. along with the Greens, form the opposition to Labour on Newham Council (section 114 notice coming soon apparently).
In East Ham, the "Newham" Independent got just under 18% of the vote while the Green vote went from 1.6% to 11.2% beating the Conservatives (who had been second in every East Ham election since the year dot) by 350 votes into fourth place.
Similar happened in West Ham & Beckton whereas in other parts of Inner east and south London such as Greenwich, Woolwich and Lewisham, the Greens finished a clear second in front of both the LDs and the Conservatives.
Across London as a whole, the Green vote rose from 3% to 10% just behind the LDs (11%). At the 2022 locals, the Greens polled 12% in the capital (LDs 14%) but it wouldn't surprise me if the Greens finished third in London in 2026 - as to how that will translate in seats, I have no clue as to the strength or otherwise of their local organisation. The recent by elections in Beckton and Little Ilford weren't good for the Greens but I've no clue as to whether the Newham Independents will be able to call on the strength of vote in 2026 they could in 2024 (albeit down on 2023).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics
I thought it was supposed to be the Left that had contempt for these people?
However as referenced above and by myself and others on here previously has been our inability to close out so many events with so many very close second places.
And NED have now overtaken us in the 'proper' medal table ranked by gold on effectively the last event. Congratulations to them an excellent performance.
Overall we have done ok and there have been a number of tremendous performances but too many near misses
On to the Paralympics 17 days to go!
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
The Rwanda plan had this small flaw. Tiny really.
It wasn’t going to work.
I mean, that hasn’t stopped a number of government programs in the past. Several of which led to praise and promotion for the people in charge. The Nimrod MRA4 was an awesome success on that metric - jobs in the right places, promotions, honours.
If people actually wanted to cut *illegal* immigration massively, killing the black economy would be a start. Which is actually fairly simple. But that would break too many vested interests.
Quite right.
There's a rule (Stodge's Seventh Political Law) which states "If you don't want to talk about a subject, someone else will. If you talk about the subject first, you can frame the conversation, if someone else does, they will."
At the moment, the immigration debate is being framed squarely by those who are "concerned" or "worried" or "anxious". No one is coming about with the positive argument for immigration (there is a strong economic one) or even the "we might not like it but we need it" argument.
There are echoes of the 2016 debate which was quickly controlled by those voices hostile to the EU - as we've often argued, those who wanted to offer a positive message either wouldn't or couldn't using words which worked for the public.
If there were a special prize for stacking up bronze medals, the British team would be away and clear in second place, behind only the Americans.
The rowers and the horsey people will be pretty pleased and athletics wasn't too far off, but beyond that rather a lot has gone wrong. There will be nervous sweating over lottery money in many governing bodies.
If someone thinks they are innocent then they have at worst been remanded in custody.
You've got to launch an intervention.
The unexplained weight loss is a big red flag with a cough.
With the big C you need to catch it early.
At worst you'll be seen as a busybody and at best a lifesaver.
Anyway, the thing was, a lot of the men who did that were professionals during the week and did it as a sort of hobby during the weekend. Stupidity and aggression are not perfectly correlated and some otherwise intelligent people just like a mindless fight.
As opposed to people on this site, who enjoy much nerdier and more intellectual combat.