Entirely predictable. Parties nearly always lurch to the extreme after a long time in government before tacking back to the centre after a defeat - and this time there's the added electoral challenge of Reform making that option oh so enticing.
But it'll fail because it will so strongly reinforce the tactical voting against them, even if they somehow manage to reuinite the right - which itself is unlikely because Reform and Tory voters are actually quite different political beasts and don't sit very naturally together.
Take me as an unrepresentative sample of one (but maybe not *that* unrepresentative). Long-time Tory member, activist, official and briefly councillor. Offered the chance to return having resigned five years ago. Instead joined the Lib Dems.
The difference between Tory and Reform voters can be summarised by the fact that Reform voters are pro Trump in a way Tories aren't.
I think there is too much reliance on an established notion of what 'the centre' is. If people perceive the whole system as failing, then they can be attracted to radical change, which rejects the existing system. This is what has happened in other European countries, where the 'mainstream' parties decline. So as a strategy for the tories, I find it hard to believe that 'moving to the centre' would be effective. Surely they need to offer a radical vision to correct the structural issues that are faced by the country. That is what Reform are trying to do, and it has appeal, even to labour voters.
"A university has removed the term Anglo-Saxon from module titles in a bid to 'decolonise the curriculum.'
The University of Nottingham is removing the expression from a number of courses, including History and English Literature, and replacing it with the more favoured 'Early Medieval English.' "
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
I Think the Guardian are confused. They are taking away £300 from pensioners not switching their electricity and gas off.
As I understand it by then they will have an extra £1000 which they might or might not choose to spend on heating.
The extra thousand is to make them equal with inflation. It's par.
The increase in April 2024 and the one due for April 2025 were both tied to wage increases.
The reason that the 'freezing granny' story is likely tosh is that the basic pension got two big increases from the one inflation spike; inflation in April 2023 and then wages in April 2024. That quirky bonus was way more than £300 a household.
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
Ground beef and boiled eggs washed down by Guinness for its laxative effect, no doubt. It is disheartening to see the Guardian chasing the almighty dollar with ‘defenses’ and ‘ground beef’ for mincemeat.
Does anyone, such as HYUFD, know what would have happened if two candidates had come equal bottom in any round of the Tory leadership vote? Would they have both been eliminated for example, meaning that one fewer round of voting would be necessary...
I’m not sure what the rules are on this occasion but ISTR they said last time if that happened they would run the round again and if the same two still true for bottoms then they would both be dropped.
The fun one would be if the round of three gave a tie at the bottom.
Meanwhile, in 'county cricket meets machinery of government' news,
Congrats to the irrepressible MichaelBarber9, appointed “adviser on effective delivery” to the PM.
Off-topic, but OpenAI have released a new model which they claim :
In our tests, the next model update performs similarly to PhD students on challenging benchmark tasks in physics, chemistry, and biology. We also found that it excels in math and coding. In a qualifying exam for the International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO), GPT-4o correctly solved only 13% of problems, while the reasoning model scored 83%. Their coding abilities were evaluated in contests and reached the 89th percentile in Codeforces competitions
I have my severe doubts, but I'll give it a whirl tomorrow.
"We test GPT-4 on pairs of questions like, “Who is Tom Cruise’s mother?” and, “Who is Mary Lee Pfeiffer’s son?” for 1,000 different celebrities and their actual parents. We find many cases where a model answers the first question (“Who is ’s parent?”) correctly, but not the second. We hypothesize this is because the pretraining data includes fewer examples of the ordering where the parent precedes the celebrity (eg “Mary Lee Pfeiffer’s son is Tom Cruise”)."
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
It wouldn't be true of a fruit like an apple, where the tree 'wants' it to be eaten, but where plants being eaten isn't a part of their lifecycle they have these compounds.
Off-topic, but OpenAI have released a new model which they claim :
In our tests, the next model update performs similarly to PhD students on challenging benchmark tasks in physics, chemistry, and biology. We also found that it excels in math and coding. In a qualifying exam for the International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO), GPT-4o correctly solved only 13% of problems, while the reasoning model scored 83%. Their coding abilities were evaluated in contests and reached the 89th percentile in Codeforces competitions
I have my severe doubts, but I'll give it a whirl tomorrow.
"We test GPT-4 on pairs of questions like, “Who is Tom Cruise’s mother?” and, “Who is Mary Lee Pfeiffer’s son?” for 1,000 different celebrities and their actual parents. We find many cases where a model answers the first question (“Who is ’s parent?”) correctly, but not the second. We hypothesize this is because the pretraining data includes fewer examples of the ordering where the parent precedes the celebrity (eg “Mary Lee Pfeiffer’s son is Tom Cruise”)."
If it can't do this it is fundamentally an idiot, never mind how it performs in benchmark tests
It’s just a data scraper. Not an idiot. But people have over-egged what it is
Its language skills are similarly limited. I asked it to provide a list of words beginning with a soft 'g' like geranium or general the other day, and it gave me words like gallery, even when I corrected the first answer. That was Gemini.
Does anyone, such as HYUFD, know what would have happened if two candidates had come equal bottom in any round of the Tory leadership vote? Would they have both been eliminated for example, meaning that one fewer round of voting would be necessary...
I’m not sure what the rules are on this occasion but ISTR they said last time if that happened they would run the round again and if the same two still true for bottoms then they would both be dropped.
The fun one would be if the round of three gave a tie at the bottom.
Meanwhile, in 'county cricket meets machinery of government' news,
Congrats to the irrepressible MichaelBarber9, appointed “adviser on effective delivery” to the PM.
Michael Barber the former adviser to Tony Blair, and who later did some work for Boris and Rishi? #NU10k. At least Donald Trump wanted Elon Musk for this role.
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
It wouldn't be true of a fruit like an apple, where the tree 'wants' it to be eaten, but where plants being eaten isn't a part of their lifecycle they have these compounds.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
I suspect she hasn't watched the first three or four episodes of Yes Minister where this topic was covered in excellent detail. "Good Morning Chancellor - something to do chancellor to show you are now chancellor - yes chancellor - something of national importance - prove you can take difficult decisions - excellent chancellor - well, there are these policies which your predecessor lacked your mindful insight into ... Yes Chancellor !"
Meanwhile the main headline in yesterday's regional newspaper was the "news" that not only does famously shit Schlager star (and singer of Nazi-favoured folk songs) Heino not only supports Trump, but that he thinks Germany needs its own Trump.
If think Christie is right: don't do it Harris. Mistake for her to agree to a second chance for Trump.
"Former GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie warned Vice President Harris against challenging former President Trump to another debate following Tuesday’s showdown.
“Nothing great can happen for her in a second debate,” the former New Jersey governor said on The View Wednesday"
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
It wouldn't be true of a fruit like an apple, where the tree 'wants' it to be eaten, but where plants being eaten isn't a part of their lifecycle they have these compounds.
Except it's bollocks.
There are also actually poisonous fruits.
Um, of course there are poisonous fruits. I said of a fruit like an apple.
Does anyone, such as HYUFD, know what would have happened if two candidates had come equal bottom in any round of the Tory leadership vote? Would they have both been eliminated for example, meaning that one fewer round of voting would be necessary...
I’m not sure what the rules are on this occasion but ISTR they said last time if that happened they would run the round again and if the same two still true for bottoms then they would both be dropped.
The fun one would be if the round of three gave a tie at the bottom.
Meanwhile, in 'county cricket meets machinery of government' news,
Congrats to the irrepressible MichaelBarber9, appointed “adviser on effective delivery” to the PM.
Michael Barber the former adviser to Tony Blair, and who later did some work for Boris and Rishi? #NU10k. At least Donald Trump wanted Elon Musk for this role.
Look on the bright side. It could have been Dido Harding or that Post Office woman.
If think Christie is right: don't do it Harris. Mistake for her to agree to a second chance for Trump.
"Former GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie warned Vice President Harris against challenging former President Trump to another debate following Tuesday’s showdown.
“Nothing great can happen for her in a second debate,” the former New Jersey governor said on The View Wednesday"
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
Does anyone, such as HYUFD, know what would have happened if two candidates had come equal bottom in any round of the Tory leadership vote? Would they have both been eliminated for example, meaning that one fewer round of voting would be necessary...
I’m not sure what the rules are on this occasion but ISTR they said last time if that happened they would run the round again and if the same two still true for bottoms then they would both be dropped.
The fun one would be if the round of three gave a tie at the bottom.
Meanwhile, in 'county cricket meets machinery of government' news,
Congrats to the irrepressible MichaelBarber9, appointed “adviser on effective delivery” to the PM.
Michael Barber the former adviser to Tony Blair, and who later did some work for Boris and Rishi? #NU10k. At least Donald Trump wanted Elon Musk for this role.
Look on the bright side. It could have been Dido Harding or that Post Office woman.
I am disappointed that they have not grabbed Dick with both hands.
Does anyone, such as HYUFD, know what would have happened if two candidates had come equal bottom in any round of the Tory leadership vote? Would they have both been eliminated for example, meaning that one fewer round of voting would be necessary...
I’m not sure what the rules are on this occasion but ISTR they said last time if that happened they would run the round again and if the same two still true for bottoms then they would both be dropped.
The fun one would be if the round of three gave a tie at the bottom.
Meanwhile, in 'county cricket meets machinery of government' news,
Congrats to the irrepressible MichaelBarber9, appointed “adviser on effective delivery” to the PM.
Michael Barber the former adviser to Tony Blair, and who later did some work for Boris and Rishi? #NU10k. At least Donald Trump wanted Elon Musk for this role.
Look on the bright side. It could have been Dido Harding or that Post Office woman.
I am disappointed that they have not grabbed Dick with both hands.
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
It wouldn't be true of a fruit like an apple, where the tree 'wants' it to be eaten, but where plants being eaten isn't a part of their lifecycle they have these compounds.
Except it's bollocks.
There are also actually poisonous fruits.
Um, of course there are poisonous fruits. I said of a fruit like an apple.
Of course there are fruits that aren't poisonous. Just like there are salads that aren't poisonous. Just pointing out that your 'argument' is shit.
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
"Thousands of burglars and shoplifters should be spared jail, the Liberal Democrats have said.
A motion at the party’s annual conference in Brighton next week will urge Sir Keir Starmer to scrap most sentences of less than a year. Rishi Sunak’s government had drafted similar plans to ditch the majority of jail terms under 12 months to ease the prisons overcrowding crisis.
Under the Liberal Democrat proposals, offenders including burglars, shoplifters and thieves would walk free on the condition that they carry out unpaid community work."
Entirely predictable. Parties nearly always lurch to the extreme after a long time in government before tacking back to the centre after a defeat - and this time there's the added electoral challenge of Reform making that option oh so enticing.
But it'll fail because it will so strongly reinforce the tactical voting against them, even if they somehow manage to reuinite the right - which itself is unlikely because Reform and Tory voters are actually quite different political beasts and don't sit very naturally together.
Take me as an unrepresentative sample of one (but maybe not *that* unrepresentative). Long-time Tory member, activist, official and briefly councillor. Offered the chance to return having resigned five years ago. Instead joined the Lib Dems.
The difference between Tory and Reform voters can be summarised by the fact that Reform voters are pro Trump in a way Tories aren't.
I think there is too much reliance on an established notion of what 'the centre' is. If people perceive the whole system as failing, then they can be attracted to radical change, which rejects the existing system. This is what has happened in other European countries, where the 'mainstream' parties decline. So as a strategy for the tories, I find it hard to believe that 'moving to the centre' would be effective. Surely they need to offer a radical vision to correct the structural issues that are faced by the country. That is what Reform are trying to do, and it has appeal, even to labour voters.
I don't think that people are seeing the 'whole system as failing', just the Conservative Party. If they decide they weren't conservative enough they could end up as the third party, that is no longer inconceivable.
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
It wouldn't be true of a fruit like an apple, where the tree 'wants' it to be eaten, but where plants being eaten isn't a part of their lifecycle they have these compounds.
Except it's bollocks.
There are also actually poisonous fruits.
Um, of course there are poisonous fruits. I said of a fruit like an apple.
Of course there are fruits that aren't poisonous. Just like there are salads that aren't poisonous. Just pointing out that your 'argument' is shit.
It has nothing to do with being 'poisonous' and I'm not making 'an argument' I am highlighting an established fact. Of course the vegetables we eat are not 'poisonous' or we would have stopped eating them millennia ago. It is true however that they do contain small amounts of harmful compounds that scientists believe are present as defences against consumption by herbivores. Have your cornflakes or coffee or whatever you need and stop being such an almighty bellend.
Entirely predictable. Parties nearly always lurch to the extreme after a long time in government before tacking back to the centre after a defeat - and this time there's the added electoral challenge of Reform making that option oh so enticing.
But it'll fail because it will so strongly reinforce the tactical voting against them, even if they somehow manage to reuinite the right - which itself is unlikely because Reform and Tory voters are actually quite different political beasts and don't sit very naturally together.
Take me as an unrepresentative sample of one (but maybe not *that* unrepresentative). Long-time Tory member, activist, official and briefly councillor. Offered the chance to return having resigned five years ago. Instead joined the Lib Dems.
The difference between Tory and Reform voters can be summarised by the fact that Reform voters are pro Trump in a way Tories aren't.
Interesting to see the large number of Republicans who are coming out for Harris. MAGA and Reform are radical right viruses that are destroying their conservative hosts. If the Tories do lurch right, as now seems likely, and Trump loses, which now seems more than possible, the Tories could end up trapped by a falling tide of unpopular populism The Lib Dems will then gain yet more experienced activists and new thinking. It's going to be a very interesting party conference season.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
Plenty more bad news a'coming in.
Means testing WFA is the right thing to do- compared to 1997 or even 2021, the basic pension has risen by far more than £300 in real terms.
The argument for announcing it when Reeves did is that it is a spending cut that could be done this year, because none of the money has be spent yet. Whereas some bits of government had already overspent massively.
Announcing the cut in late October would probably have made it impossible to implement, since the payments go out in November and December.
Entirely predictable. Parties nearly always lurch to the extreme after a long time in government before tacking back to the centre after a defeat - and this time there's the added electoral challenge of Reform making that option oh so enticing.
But it'll fail because it will so strongly reinforce the tactical voting against them, even if they somehow manage to reuinite the right - which itself is unlikely because Reform and Tory voters are actually quite different political beasts and don't sit very naturally together.
Take me as an unrepresentative sample of one (but maybe not *that* unrepresentative). Long-time Tory member, activist, official and briefly councillor. Offered the chance to return having resigned five years ago. Instead joined the Lib Dems.
The difference between Tory and Reform voters can be summarised by the fact that Reform voters are pro Trump in a way Tories aren't.
I think there is too much reliance on an established notion of what 'the centre' is. If people perceive the whole system as failing, then they can be attracted to radical change, which rejects the existing system. This is what has happened in other European countries, where the 'mainstream' parties decline. So as a strategy for the tories, I find it hard to believe that 'moving to the centre' would be effective. Surely they need to offer a radical vision to correct the structural issues that are faced by the country. That is what Reform are trying to do, and it has appeal, even to labour voters.
I don't think that people are seeing the 'whole system as failing', just the Conservative Party. If they decide they weren't conservative enough they could end up as the third party, that is no longer inconceivable.
Reform have no vision , they offer no solutions, their whole approach is to stir up and profit from discontent blaming a few scapegoats. The last thing they want to do is actually make anything better,
Meanwhile “centrism”used to be called the post war consensus. Thatcherism was a break from that consensus. That was about 20 years in the making and had a school of economic thought behind it. There is nothing like that in the Tory party today. You can’t conjure that up out of nowhere. So you end up with the Tories intellectually lost and trapped in pastiche and confusion.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
Plenty more bad news a'coming in.
Means testing WFA is the right thing to do- compared to 1997 or even 2021, the basic pension has risen by far more than £300 in real terms.
The argument for announcing it when Reeves did is that it is a spending cut that could be done this year, because none of the money has be spent yet. Whereas some bits of government had already overspent massively.
Announcing the cut in late October would probably have made it impossible to implement, since the payments go out in November and December.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
It could be that, added to Blairism, but in the background is the question of what panicked Rishi into a snap election, and does the same data (even if it is wrong) underlie both?
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
She is a chess champion, yes?
I’ve always found chess players who are ruthless with their pawns early on are easy meat later.
"A university has removed the term Anglo-Saxon from module titles in a bid to 'decolonise the curriculum.'
The University of Nottingham is removing the expression from a number of courses, including History and English Literature, and replacing it with the more favoured 'Early Medieval English.' "
There is nothing inaccurate about calling the language Old English rather than Anglo-Saxon. The former has been the more favoured term for many years.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
And, this sort of sentiment is why the Liberal Democrats won't supplement the Tories on the Right.
Eventually, even @david_herdson will come to his senses on that.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
It could be that, added to Blairism, but in the background is the question of what panicked Rishi into a snap election, and does the same data (even if it is wrong) underlie both?
Sure. The country is in a mess. But there is a cost to making poor people poorer - and the cut line they have for WFA excludes far too many poor pensioners.
As usual, the Treasury doesn't want to include these oncosts in their calculations.
Entirely predictable. Parties nearly always lurch to the extreme after a long time in government before tacking back to the centre after a defeat - and this time there's the added electoral challenge of Reform making that option oh so enticing.
But it'll fail because it will so strongly reinforce the tactical voting against them, even if they somehow manage to reuinite the right - which itself is unlikely because Reform and Tory voters are actually quite different political beasts and don't sit very naturally together.
Take me as an unrepresentative sample of one (but maybe not *that* unrepresentative). Long-time Tory member, activist, official and briefly councillor. Offered the chance to return having resigned five years ago. Instead joined the Lib Dems.
The difference between Tory and Reform voters can be summarised by the fact that Reform voters are pro Trump in a way Tories aren't.
I think there is too much reliance on an established notion of what 'the centre' is. If people perceive the whole system as failing, then they can be attracted to radical change, which rejects the existing system. This is what has happened in other European countries, where the 'mainstream' parties decline. So as a strategy for the tories, I find it hard to believe that 'moving to the centre' would be effective. Surely they need to offer a radical vision to correct the structural issues that are faced by the country. That is what Reform are trying to do, and it has appeal, even to labour voters.
I don't think that people are seeing the 'whole system as failing', just the Conservative Party. If they decide they weren't conservative enough they could end up as the third party, that is no longer inconceivable.
Reform have no vision , they offer no solutions, their whole approach is to stir up and profit from discontent blaming a few scapegoats. The last thing they want to do is actually make anything better,
Meanwhile “centrism”used to be called the post war consensus. Thatcherism was a break from that consensus. That was about 20 years in the making and had a school of economic thought behind it. There is nothing like that in the Tory party today. You can’t conjure that up out of nowhere. So you end up with the Tories intellectually lost and trapped in pastiche and confusion.
Centrism can be both extreme and shit.
Centrism in the 60s and 70s gave us terrible industrial relations and economic policy. More recently, it has given us untrammelled free movement, global asylum rights to any who land here, deification of the NHS and venerating current over capital spending.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
She is a chess champion, yes?
I’ve always found chess players who are ruthless with their pawns early on are easy meat later.
Except the pawns are pensioners, not Labour voters.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
And, this sort of sentiment is why the Liberal Democrats won't supplement the Tories on the Right.
Eventually, even @david_herdson will come to his senses on that.
That theory would only work if the Conservatives were doing the difficult, but right, thing of supporting the government on this one. Because it is the right thing to do, however horrible the optics. (Anyone know what happened to the 2017 plans? Were they nixed by the DUP as a price of coalition, or did they just not happen due to time and shambolicness?)
But they have gone all-in populist, leading the charge against the granny-freezers. Totally understandable politically, especially given that pensioners are about the only people prepared to give the Conservatives the time of day right now. But it's not rebuiliding the party's reputation with the "fiscal prudence with a human face" crew.
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants ...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
It wouldn't be true of a fruit like an apple, where the tree 'wants' it to be eaten, but where plants being eaten isn't a part of their lifecycle they have these compounds.
Except it's bollocks.
There are also actually poisonous fruits.
Um, of course there are poisonous fruits. I said of a fruit like an apple.
Of course there are fruits that aren't poisonous. Just like there are salads that aren't poisonous. Just pointing out that your 'argument' is shit.
It has nothing to do with being 'poisonous' and I'm not making 'an argument' I am highlighting an established fact. Of course the vegetables we eat are not 'poisonous' or we would have stopped eating them millennia ago. It is true however that they do contain small amounts of harmful compounds that scientists believe are present as defences against consumption by herbivores. Have your cornflakes or coffee or whatever you need and stop being such an almighty bellend.
Your point is simplistic to the point of being infantile. "harmful compounds that scientists believe are present as defences" might be beneficial or harmful depending on which animals are eating them, which plants are being eaten, and the dosage. In exactly the same way as fruit that the tree "wants to be eaten" might be harmful or beneficial depending on exactly the same factors.
As a simple example, have you not noticed that plants that have made themselves taste bitter as a defence are also sometimes very good for us?
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
And, this sort of sentiment is why the Liberal Democrats won't supplement the Tories on the Right.
Eventually, even @david_herdson will come to his senses on that.
We've move onto the new thread. But lets pull this apart. "this sort of sentiment" = "giving a shit about other people"
There has always been a cruel streak amongst some conservatives, we all know that. Your problem as a party is that cruelty used to be combined with actually delivering stuff. In recent years the cruelty was turned up to 11, and delivery down to 2.
As none of you seem capable of processing just how hated you are right now, never mind what you can do about it, it doesn't really matter what you think about other parties' chances. Look to your own.
Entirely predictable. Parties nearly always lurch to the extreme after a long time in government before tacking back to the centre after a defeat - and this time there's the added electoral challenge of Reform making that option oh so enticing.
But it'll fail because it will so strongly reinforce the tactical voting against them, even if they somehow manage to reuinite the right - which itself is unlikely because Reform and Tory voters are actually quite different political beasts and don't sit very naturally together.
Take me as an unrepresentative sample of one (but maybe not *that* unrepresentative). Long-time Tory member, activist, official and briefly councillor. Offered the chance to return having resigned five years ago. Instead joined the Lib Dems.
The difference between Tory and Reform voters can be summarised by the fact that Reform voters are pro Trump in a way Tories aren't.
I think there is too much reliance on an established notion of what 'the centre' is. If people perceive the whole system as failing, then they can be attracted to radical change, which rejects the existing system. This is what has happened in other European countries, where the 'mainstream' parties decline. So as a strategy for the tories, I find it hard to believe that 'moving to the centre' would be effective. Surely they need to offer a radical vision to correct the structural issues that are faced by the country. That is what Reform are trying to do, and it has appeal, even to labour voters.
I don't think that people are seeing the 'whole system as failing', just the Conservative Party. If they decide they weren't conservative enough they could end up as the third party, that is no longer inconceivable.
Reform have no vision , they offer no solutions, their whole approach is to stir up and profit from discontent blaming a few scapegoats. The last thing they want to do is actually make anything better,
Meanwhile “centrism”used to be called the post war consensus. Thatcherism was a break from that consensus. That was about 20 years in the making and had a school of economic thought behind it. There is nothing like that in the Tory party today. You can’t conjure that up out of nowhere. So you end up with the Tories intellectually lost and trapped in pastiche and confusion.
Thatcherism was just a return to commonsensical economics. You don't need that grunt work to be done again because nothing has changed, except that the enduring temptation to try to tax and spend our way to prosperity has taken over again.
"Ministers did not carry out a specific impact assessment on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment from the bulk of pensioners, such as the potential effect on illness and death rates among older people, Downing Street has said."
Exactly what they used to criticise the tories for.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we have a bad winter this could really cause the government a huge amount of trouble. I genuinely do not understand what they are up to. The only thing I can imagine is that having painted themselves into a corner with ruling out rises in the major taxes they are left with some very poor choices. Which is exactly what you would expect to happen after swearing off doing anything sensible with the main fiscal levers. But this is all so predictably obvious that I find it hard to believe they didn't see it coming. Surely they aren't that incompetent?
To me it seems like a panic response. Reeves was bounced into this by Treasury immediately after they showed her a load of very bad news about debts and she then told them she is settling the rail disputes by coughing up a ton of £ etc etc. Same old crap from the Treasury officials.
It makes no sense to do this outside of a wider Budget on 30th Oct.
Why - suddenly - in late July did they need to save £2b approx over next few months ie. dump WFA and social care cap?
Because it was the right thing to do.
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
I agree with the "get the bad things done early" strategy. Makes the most sense politically. I think the problem is that in doing it they're indulging in what they used to describe as "performative cruelty" when the Tories did it.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
And, this sort of sentiment is why the Liberal Democrats won't supplement the Tories on the Right.
Eventually, even @david_herdson will come to his senses on that.
We've move onto the new thread. But lets pull this apart. "this sort of sentiment" = "giving a shit about other people"
There has always been a cruel streak amongst some conservatives, we all know that. Your problem as a party is that cruelty used to be combined with actually delivering stuff. In recent years the cruelty was turned up to 11, and delivery down to 2.
As none of you seem capable of processing just how hated you are right now, never mind what you can do about it, it doesn't really matter what you think about other parties' chances. Look to your own.
Your problem is that you just get way too emotional about stuff and it totally colours your thinking.
For even more context, this was 1 in 6 of every child in the 'church'.
Another data point in my "Wherever you have religion, you will have abuse by members of that religion, using the religion for cover."
At which point some people screech "Not my religion!"; showing that *they*, if not abusers themselves, are part of the problem.
Joe Rogan has a good theory that the reason the Catholic Church told priests to be celibate, is that they were the original community rock stars who spent their lives chasing women.
Of course, asking them to be celibate has shown to attract a different type of pervert instead, but it’s not a totally bonkers theory as to why it happened.
Out for lunch with my friend the nearly-retired NT staff member at my local big country National Trust Estate yesterday.
Interesting points.
1 - Questioning the staff, it seems the scones are indeed vegan (don't tell the Leeanderthal Man). Asked a counter server and she took out a bigly ring-binder, vanished for about 3 minutes therein, and said that the scones were vegan, apart from the cheese scones, which have cheese from cows.
I agree they are not as good as could be, being a little stodgy. Ashfield Visitor Centre scones are better. Apologies to Mr @stodge for the comparison.
2 - My friend confirms thinks that the suggestion that the NT treats it's staff like sausages in a sausage machine may well have a basis in reality, but drew a distinction between more "corporate" areas (eg shops, restaurants, offices etc) and more self-managed areas. Her own position was as the only staff member in a small property, so there was basically her and 60 volunteers, and the whole team was always "us" not "me and them".
Also an interesting distinction in treatment is suggested between "indoor" staff and "outdoor" staff, the latter being more self-directing.
3 - Also as an aside, NT interest in Active Travel seems to be growing. This property has had Sustrans out to visit, looking at making their "path round the estate" useable for everyone. Currently it has an enormous flight of steps in a wood, lots of rough-stuff, cattle grids and so on - so it's not even accessible to a Tramper, which is the SUV of mobility scooters.
I think they will look at a link to the National Cycling and Walking Network (NCN) as it is currently several miles away. And this rural property has 200k people within about 5 miles, so there are lots within walking / wheeling / cycling distance.
So I was pointing out how many people (25%) don't have driving licences, and how many potential visitors they weren't helping get there .
Comments
IPSOS: Harris 47% Trump 42%
Morning Consult: Harris 50% Trump 45%
YouGov: Harris 49% Trump 45%
Leger: Harris 50% Trump 47%
That’s not what it looks like on the ground.
https://x.com/arturrehi/status/1834195474334597226
Putin told the army they have until 1st October to take back the territory, but the Ukranians were waiting for their ‘army’ to turn up.
https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/1834006729966723558?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ
Trump has his own show of dissent to deal with.
Republicans urge Trump to accept second debate against Harris
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4875151-trump-harris-second-debate-republicans/
Seems the University of Nottingham is set to remove the term 'Anglo-Saxon', because accurate history matters less than offending the terminally over sensitive (apparently it's a bad term in the USA).
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anglo-saxons-removed-from-course-in-decolonisation-of-curriculum/ar-AA1pNfsE
"A university has removed the term Anglo-Saxon from module titles in a bid to 'decolonise the curriculum.'
The University of Nottingham is removing the expression from a number of courses, including History and English Literature, and replacing it with the more favoured 'Early Medieval English.' "
‘Plants are trying to kill you’: why carnivore influencers claim we should eat only meat
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/sep/12/carnivore-diet-meat-plants
...“Plants are trying to kill you,” Chaffee says within the first few minutes of our first video call. “We have some defenses, and that’s why some plants are edible, but they still cause harm with long-term exposure over years and decades,” he continues, comparing the long-term health impacts of eating salad to those of cigarettes and alcohol.
Chaffee is one of the leading exponents of the carnivore diet, the latest trend in the wellness universe, in which people claim they turned around their health – and their lives – by eating bowls piled high with ground beef and boiled eggs...
The reason that the 'freezing granny' story is likely tosh is that the basic pension got two big increases from the one inflation spike; inflation in April 2023 and then wages in April 2024. That quirky bonus was way more than £300 a household.
Meanwhile, in 'county cricket meets machinery of government' news,
Congrats to the irrepressible MichaelBarber9, appointed “adviser on effective delivery” to the PM.
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1834301126709313938
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/06/ai-llms
If it can't do this it is fundamentally an idiot, never mind how it performs in benchmark tests
It’s just a data scraper. Not an idiot. But people have over-egged what it is
It wouldn't be true of a fruit like an apple, where the tree 'wants' it to be eaten, but where plants being eaten isn't a part of their lifecycle they have these compounds.
Its language skills are similarly limited. I asked it to provide a list of words beginning with a soft 'g' like geranium or general the other day, and it gave me words like gallery, even when I corrected the first answer. That was Gemini.
There are also actually poisonous fruits.
"Former GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie warned Vice President Harris against challenging former President Trump to another debate following Tuesday’s showdown.
“Nothing great can happen for her in a second debate,” the former New Jersey governor said on The View Wednesday"
The Hill
Is more reason needed than that?
Besides do it in the Budget and that's all anyone talks about from your budget, get the "bad" news out of the way first and the Budget can be more positive potentially.
If the Tories do lurch right, as now seems likely, and Trump loses, which now seems more than possible, the Tories could end up trapped by a falling tide of unpopular populism
The Lib Dems will then gain yet more experienced activists and new thinking. It's going to be a very interesting party conference season.
Means testing WFA is the right thing to do- compared to 1997 or even 2021, the basic pension has risen by far more than £300 in real terms.
The argument for announcing it when Reeves did is that it is a spending cut that could be done this year, because none of the money has be spent yet. Whereas some bits of government had already overspent massively.
Announcing the cut in late October would probably have made it impossible to implement, since the payments go out in November and December.
Meanwhile “centrism”used to be called the post war consensus. Thatcherism was a break from that consensus. That was about 20 years in the making and had a school of economic thought behind it. There is nothing like that in the Tory party today. You can’t conjure that up out of nowhere. So you end up with the Tories intellectually lost and trapped in pastiche and confusion.
The new government has got much to offer. Is already setting out positive-sounding things like a 10 year plan for the English NHS to make it fit for purpose (not just throwing cash at it). But is very rapidly building a reputation for being nasty uncaring shits. That there are so many reports of newly-elected MPs in tears being forced to vote for cruelty speaks volumes about the cold heart of Reeves.
I’ve always found chess players who are ruthless with their pawns early on are easy meat later.
Eventually, even @david_herdson will come to his senses on that.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/12/spire-healthcare-profit-revenue-nhs-outsourcing
As usual, the Treasury doesn't want to include these oncosts in their calculations.
Centrism in the 60s and 70s gave us terrible industrial relations and economic policy. More recently, it has given us untrammelled free movement, global asylum rights to any who land here, deification of the NHS and venerating current over capital spending.
NEW THREAD
Another data point in my "Wherever you have religion, you will have abuse by members of that religion, using the religion for cover."
At which point some people screech "Not my religion!"; showing that *they*, if not abusers themselves, are part of the problem.
But they have gone all-in populist, leading the charge against the granny-freezers. Totally understandable politically, especially given that pensioners are about the only people prepared to give the Conservatives the time of day right now. But it's not rebuiliding the party's reputation with the "fiscal prudence with a human face" crew.
As a simple example, have you not noticed that plants that have made themselves taste bitter as a defence are also sometimes very good for us?
There has always been a cruel streak amongst some conservatives, we all know that. Your problem as a party is that cruelty used to be combined with actually delivering stuff. In recent years the cruelty was turned up to 11, and delivery down to 2.
As none of you seem capable of processing just how hated you are right now, never mind what you can do about it, it doesn't really matter what you think about other parties' chances. Look to your own.
Of course, asking them to be celibate has shown to attract a different type of pervert instead, but it’s not a totally bonkers theory as to why it happened.
BBC report from November 2023:
Grangemouth oil refinery could cease operations by 2025
The company said Grangemouth had been facing significant challenges because of global market pressures.
Petroineos intends to turn the site into a fuels import terminal which would result in the loss of at least 400 jobs.
Work to transform the site is expected to take 18 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-67497023
Out for lunch with my friend the nearly-retired NT staff member at my local big country National Trust Estate yesterday.
Interesting points.
1 - Questioning the staff, it seems the scones are indeed vegan (don't tell the Leeanderthal Man). Asked a counter server and she took out a bigly ring-binder, vanished for about 3 minutes therein, and said that the scones were vegan, apart from the cheese scones, which have cheese from cows.
I agree they are not as good as could be, being a little stodgy. Ashfield Visitor Centre scones are better. Apologies to Mr @stodge for the comparison.
2 - My friend confirms thinks that the suggestion that the NT treats it's staff like sausages in a sausage machine may well have a basis in reality, but drew a distinction between more "corporate" areas (eg shops, restaurants, offices etc) and more self-managed areas. Her own position was as the only staff member in a small property, so there was basically her and 60 volunteers, and the whole team was always "us" not "me and them".
Also an interesting distinction in treatment is suggested between "indoor" staff and "outdoor" staff, the latter being more self-directing.
3 - Also as an aside, NT interest in Active Travel seems to be growing. This property has had Sustrans out to visit, looking at making their "path round the estate" useable for everyone. Currently it has an enormous flight of steps in a wood, lots of rough-stuff, cattle grids and so on - so it's not even accessible to a Tramper, which is the SUV of mobility scooters.
I think they will look at a link to the National Cycling and Walking Network (NCN) as it is currently several miles away. And this rural property has 200k people within about 5 miles, so there are lots within walking / wheeling / cycling distance.
So I was pointing out how many people (25%) don't have driving licences, and how many potential visitors they weren't helping get there