Re the three rings, perhaps you should have followed the French model: Engagement Ring, Wedding Ring, Philandering (although I'm not sure it necessarily has to happen in that order!)
I did follow the French model.
Did she 'follow' you back?
She did, sadly it was Apple that was responsible for everybody finding out.
No, it was Mr Eagles and his lack of understanding of technology, that led to ‘everybody’ finding out.
It amuses my friends and colleagues that Mr Apple himself was hoist by his own Apple.
Messages replicating across devices totally seamlessly, is the single best thing about the Apple ecosystem.
I have an old iPhone SE as my phone, which I use for little more than making phone calls - and tethering the iPad, which is the main device and from which I can do a day’s work anywhere from a pub to a motorway rest stop.
Oh God help me.
I've just done a software update on my MacBook and I now get this, the option to mirror my iPhone on this MacBook.
Like I am not worried enough when somebody asks to use my MacBook.
That’s basically a Remote Desktop connection, no data sharing. Most of the rest done through the usual Apple sharing. Requires both devices to be signed in with the same AppleID, so you can’t set up your personal phone with work laptop etc.
Avoid the hell out of IOS18 for a couple of months though. I’m on the beta program and it’s properly crap. Managed to lose me 200 open Safari tabs in the update.
I am loving iOS 18, been testing 5G Stand Alone.
I'm currently annoyed with Apple, my MacBook pro has developed a weird fault where when it's asleep it overheats and sucks the battery dry. I'm having to survive on a borrowed Chromebook as a result.
Nobody provides support in Wales - look at the mess that you guys made of the civil war there.
I'm sure I'm meant to understand this, but I don't.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
their big idea is to spend even more public money - at least labour seem to be rowing a bit back from that
Was that the big idea, I’d nodded off by then
I’m sure all their well,off southern constituents will welcome having more of their money expropriated to throw into a vast bottomless pit that will never have enough.
Mind you should they have a chance to go into power after the next election I’m sure they’d happily abandon any principles for a ministerial car and ministerial office.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
Overheard on a Sunil style steam railway this evening in Norfolk a pensioner say ‘resigned my membership of the Labour Party last week, thieving gits!’
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
That caught my attention, but I see you are being Leonine.
Mr Starmer has swapped his £500 specs for a £220 version. Both are frame prices.
I spend about £400-500 a year on specs if I want two pairs (one without reacting lenses for indoors) at Specsavers, which goes on lenses and necessary options, because I have an interesting prescription. That's with a fair amount of discounts and freebies, which at Specsavers are horribly complicated.
If it was a £500 frame I would be having them re-lensed for the next year.
I don't see the point of paying £500 for an ordinary looking frame, so count me as baffled on thsi one.
Trying their best to pump the economy a little more ahead of the election.
A cut was expected, but half a point is more than most thought was coming. That said, food prices actually fell last month and gas prices are way down, so not entirely unjustified.
It will make Trump's wailing about "the worst economy ever" look even more unhinged. The US economy is going like a train.
If it's going like a train, shouldn't they be raising rates?
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
It is quite easy to accept nothing, and you get plenty of prestige and implicit advantages from having a senior political position - much as I understand all of us liking a good deal that comes with free swag, I don't know why so many find it so hard to say no given that.
Dull probity, boring competence, and first rate communication of where he wants us to go and how he is going to get us there were, I think, the three big asks. Plus don't make stupid mistakes and unforced errors was a bit of a given.
Close to 0 out of 10 so far on these. I am very surprised. I had thought, if anything, he would overdo all this to play for safety. I suppose he should be given until early next year to see if he can recover.
The big winners from the state of play currently should be the LDs.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
well of course the answer is they forgot being conservatives and a good proportion of their base therefore went to Reform
Yes marriage works, is the best method for raising children and the Tory leadership contenders should be pushing big tax allowances for married couples
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
well of course the answer is they forgot being conservatives and a good proportion of their base therefore went to Reform
Are Reform particularly conservative? Their manifesto was all over the place (though a lot less barmy than the SDP).
Trying their best to pump the economy a little more ahead of the election.
A cut was expected, but half a point is more than most thought was coming. That said, food prices actually fell last month and gas prices are way down, so not entirely unjustified.
It will make Trump's wailing about "the worst economy ever" look even more unhinged. The US economy is going like a train.
Not so. Fedwatch had a 65% chance of 50 BPS cut this week and this was being widely predicted this week following last weeks data.
Married Police Chief Superintendent, 41, resigns ahead of misconduct hearing, that he was involved in a relationship with a 24-year-old trainee. They first met five years ago, so aged 36 and 19.
Government needs to better regulate this, so that criminal charges of misconduct in public office can more easily be brought in such cases, and senior officers not allowed to resign when under investigation.
its probably a bit low bar for misconduct in a public office criminal case if everybody willing . Just a sacking I would think is just.Misconduct in a public office for police is usually reserved for corruption or gross negligence on duty.Now if he had taken 30K worth of football tickets and some posh togs
Any sexual relationship between a senior officer and a very young new recruit should automatically meet the threshold for misconduct in public office. Even if he wasn’t married and it was all totally consentual, it’s still a totally unprofessional relationship because of the power imbalance. In a corporate environment, CEOs get fired for this.
Trying their best to pump the economy a little more ahead of the election.
A cut was expected, but half a point is more than most thought was coming. That said, food prices actually fell last month and gas prices are way down, so not entirely unjustified.
It will make Trump's wailing about "the worst economy ever" look even more unhinged. The US economy is going like a train.
The vast majority of Americans had it good under Trump, and have had it sh!t under Biden/Harris.
As with the UK election, the incumbents can shout all they like about the economic statistics being awesome, but that doesn’t come close to matching most people’s actual economic experiences of the last few years.
Trying their best to pump the economy a little more ahead of the election.
A cut was expected, but half a point is more than most thought was coming. That said, food prices actually fell last month and gas prices are way down, so not entirely unjustified.
It will make Trump's wailing about "the worst economy ever" look even more unhinged. The US economy is going like a train.
Not so. Fedwatch had a 65% chance of 50 BPS cut this week and this was being widely predicted this week following last weeks data.
Yes marriage works, is the best method for raising children and the Tory leadership contenders should be pushing big tax allowances for married couples
Another "widow" tax, then?
We would restore their winter fuel allowance too and keep their single person’s council tax discount
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
On 33% of the vote. It could be gone in a single general election if Reform eat into the Labour white working class vote and the Tories, LDs and Greens the Labour middle class vote
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
On 33% of the vote. It could be gone in a single general election if Reform eat into the Labour white working class vote and the Tories, LDs and Greens the Labour middle class vote
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
well of course the answer is they forgot being conservatives and a good proportion of their base therefore went to Reform
Some truth in the second bit. But it's also the case that any moves to win back defectors to Reform will likely induce more defections to the Lib Dems and Labour.
Go back to the 80s and 90s, and Chris Patten and John Redwood, Michael Heseltine and Ann Widdicombe, were able to coexist, however grumpily. For whatever reason, that's unimaginable right now. Doesn't matter who is to blame, it just isn't.
As long as the right is more badly split than the left, it will struggle to win. And whilst dislike of Corbyn provided sufficient glue for a while, I don't think Starmer hate will be as effective.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
Overheard on a Sunil style steam railway this evening in Norfolk a pensioner say ‘resigned my membership of the Labour Party last week, thieving gits!’
Having enjoyed a pleasant afternoon at Sandown and relieved the bookies of a few quid, I'm reminded Lady Victoria Starmer is a big horse racing fan and both she and the Prime Minister attended the St Leger at Doncaster.
As I assume they didn't queue for the Tatts enclosure, there was an invitation from the racecourse to attend. Should that be declared as hospitality? There was likely to have been lunch in the Directors' Box (another bit of grift persumably? So much better if they had queued at the burger van or tried the chinese food van - hint, NEVER eat chow mein outdoors while wearing a white shirt on a windy day).
In the spirit of the new puritanism, should any bets be declared as well? I mean, he's a public servant paid from the public purse so if he had a tenner on ILLINOIS in the Leger, should that be permitted? Perhaps if they won any money, that should be donated to Rachel Reeves to help offset the deficit or put an RN nuclear sub back in the water since we are apparently defenceless thanks to the new Government (and the old one as well).
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
Overheard on a Sunil style steam railway this evening in Norfolk a pensioner say ‘resigned my membership of the Labour Party last week, thieving gits!’
Trying their best to pump the economy a little more ahead of the election.
A cut was expected, but half a point is more than most thought was coming. That said, food prices actually fell last month and gas prices are way down, so not entirely unjustified.
It will make Trump's wailing about "the worst economy ever" look even more unhinged. The US economy is going like a train.
Not so. Fedwatch had a 65% chance of 50 BPS cut this week and this was being widely predicted this week following last weeks data.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
Overheard on a Sunil style steam railway this evening in Norfolk a pensioner say ‘resigned my membership of the Labour Party last week, thieving gits!’
Mid Norfolk or North Norfolk?
If it was the North Norfolk, I got to travel on it with Mrs Stodge last week from Holt to Sheringham. They couldn't cope with the numbers so we had to stand all the way to Sheringham as did many others much less able.
We stayed in a lovely hotel in Fakenham - hard to believe that is now a marginal constituency which Labour would take on a 0.8% swing.
What I couldn't believe was how many people in Norfolk had dogs...
Having enjoyed a pleasant afternoon at Sandown and relieved the bookies of a few quid, I'm reminded Lady Victoria Starmer is a big horse racing fan and both she and the Prime Minister attended the St Leger at Doncaster.
As I assume they didn't queue for the Tatts enclosure, there was an invitation from the racecourse to attend. Should that be declared as hospitality? There was likely to have been lunch in the Directors' Box (another bit of grift persumably? So much better if they had queued at the burger van or tried the chinese food van - hint, NEVER eat chow mein outdoors while wearing a white shirt on a windy day).
In the spirit of the new puritanism, should any bets be declared as well? I mean, he's a public servant paid from the public purse so if he had a tenner on ILLINOIS in the Leger, should that be permitted? Perhaps if they won any money, that should be donated to Rachel Reeves to help offset the deficit or put an RN nuclear sub back in the water since we are apparently defenceless thanks to the new Government (and the old one as well).
its not low level hospitality that is the objection, (although 30K worth of football tickets is not low level) its its puritanical stance on everything like outside smoking. At least the last puritan in downing street (Brown) was pretty careful on this stuff
Married Police Chief Superintendent, 41, resigns ahead of misconduct hearing, that he was involved in a relationship with a 24-year-old trainee. They first met five years ago, so aged 36 and 19.
Government needs to better regulate this, so that criminal charges of misconduct in public office can more easily be brought in such cases, and senior officers not allowed to resign when under investigation.
its probably a bit low bar for misconduct in a public office criminal case if everybody willing . Just a sacking I would think is just.Misconduct in a public office for police is usually reserved for corruption or gross negligence on duty.Now if he had taken 30K worth of football tickets and some posh togs
Any sexual relationship between a senior officer and a very young new recruit should automatically meet the threshold for misconduct in public office. Even if he wasn’t married and it was all totally consentual, it’s still a totally unprofessional relationship because of the power imbalance. In a corporate environment, CEOs get fired for this.
exactly they get fired which given he has not took 30K of football hospitality or a load of designer clothes is fine for me. Hasn't Starmer got a public office?
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
That caught my attention, but I see you are being Leonine.
Mr Starmer has swapped his £500 specs for a £220 version. Both are frame prices.
I spend about £400-500 a year on specs if I want two pairs (one without reacting lenses for indoors) at Specsavers, which goes on lenses and necessary options, because I have an interesting prescription. That's with a fair amount of discounts and freebies, which at Specsavers are horribly complicated.
If it was a £500 frame I would be having them re-lensed for the next year.
I don't see the point of paying £500 for an ordinary looking frame, so count me as baffled on thsi one.
How much! I've worn fairly potent glasses since I was 3 years old, thanks to being pretty severely short sighted, but I think the most I've spent on a pair was £80 for some safety space ones with toughened lenses...
Our 31st wedding anniversary today. 34 years to the day since we met. Had a fantastic day in sun drenched Lincoln.
Congratulations Mr & Mrs Tyndall, a great achievement. You’re either older than I thought you were, or got married very young indeed!
Oh I am considerably older than you thought. Three score next year.
I had you early 50s.
It’s interesting how much we get an impression of who other posters here are, and what their lives might look like.
Trouble is I feel like I am 20. Mentally and emotionally at least. So far the body has not started to object but it is coming. I will soon start using terms like 'I can feel it in my bones!'
Trying their best to pump the economy a little more ahead of the election.
A cut was expected, but half a point is more than most thought was coming. That said, food prices actually fell last month and gas prices are way down, so not entirely unjustified.
It will make Trump's wailing about "the worst economy ever" look even more unhinged. The US economy is going like a train.
Not so. Fedwatch had a 65% chance of 50 BPS cut this week and this was being widely predicted this week following last weeks data.
Having enjoyed a pleasant afternoon at Sandown and relieved the bookies of a few quid, I'm reminded Lady Victoria Starmer is a big horse racing fan and both she and the Prime Minister attended the St Leger at Doncaster.
As I assume they didn't queue for the Tatts enclosure, there was an invitation from the racecourse to attend. Should that be declared as hospitality? There was likely to have been lunch in the Directors' Box (another bit of grift persumably? So much better if they had queued at the burger van or tried the chinese food van - hint, NEVER eat chow mein outdoors while wearing a white shirt on a windy day).
In the spirit of the new puritanism, should any bets be declared as well? I mean, he's a public servant paid from the public purse so if he had a tenner on ILLINOIS in the Leger, should that be permitted? Perhaps if they won any money, that should be donated to Rachel Reeves to help offset the deficit or put an RN nuclear sub back in the water since we are apparently defenceless thanks to the new Government (and the old one as well).
its not low level hospitality that is the objection, (although 30K worth of football tickets is not low level) its its puritanical stance on everything like outside smoking. At least the last puritan in downing street (Brown) was pretty careful on this stuff
I don't see the connection. I don't recall Starmer saying he would refuse all hospitality - the F1 issue in the early Blair days was far worse. Prince William got Taylor Swift tickets, so did a lot of other people I would guess.
The bigger question is whether such "generosity" buys any kind of influence in the decision making process. If I gave the LDs £50, would I expect a meeting with Ed Davey on an issue of policy? No, I wouldn't. Do those who offer the hospitality expect anything from it? Do Arena Racing think giving the Prime Minister and his wife a day at the Leger will affect the PM's view on affordability checks? I don't know though they might have taken the opportunity over lunch to raise it as a discussion item.
Married Police Chief Superintendent, 41, resigns ahead of misconduct hearing, that he was involved in a relationship with a 24-year-old trainee. They first met five years ago, so aged 36 and 19.
Government needs to better regulate this, so that criminal charges of misconduct in public office can more easily be brought in such cases, and senior officers not allowed to resign when under investigation.
its probably a bit low bar for misconduct in a public office criminal case if everybody willing . Just a sacking I would think is just.Misconduct in a public office for police is usually reserved for corruption or gross negligence on duty.Now if he had taken 30K worth of football tickets and some posh togs
Any sexual relationship between a senior officer and a very young new recruit should automatically meet the threshold for misconduct in public office. Even if he wasn’t married and it was all totally consentual, it’s still a totally unprofessional relationship because of the power imbalance. In a corporate environment, CEOs get fired for this.
Yes but that is a civil/corporate punishment. Not a criminal one. The idea of criminalising such behaviour is ludicrous.
Declaration of interest: I met my wife 34 years ago today, as previously mentioned in this thread, when she arrived as my trainee on a rig. Perhaps we were lucky we were working for a French company who took a rather progressive view of such matters.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Good news that the Fed has cut by half a point even if our our own inflation data was mildly disappointing, sterling strengthening off the back of it should aid import inflation a bit helping to keep us on track medium term.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
well of course the answer is they forgot being conservatives and a good proportion of their base therefore went to Reform
Are Reform particularly conservative? Their manifesto was all over the place (though a lot less barmy than the SDP).
The Reform manifesto needed some work (eg they were going to spend loads of money cutting income tax, in a way which wasn't going to alter many people's marginal rates of tax - they would get way more bang for buck by spending the same money on reducing tax rates rather than moving thresholds), but it was mostly coherently small state conservative. Low tax, low immigration, less nannying, less spent on a dash for net zero.
If Labour voters stay at home next time, then I'm not sure a Tory - Reform coalition isn't impossible. It would probably be the best outcome too - the Tories would moderate some of the more wacky elements in Reform, Reform would keep the Tories honest and block the Sunak style "talk right, act left" approach.
Our 31st wedding anniversary today. 34 years to the day since we met. Had a fantastic day in sun drenched Lincoln.
Congratulations Mr & Mrs Tyndall, a great achievement. You’re either older than I thought you were, or got married very young indeed!
Oh I am considerably older than you thought. Three score next year.
I had you early 50s.
It’s interesting how much we get an impression of who other posters here are, and what their lives might look like.
Trouble is I feel like I am 20. Mentally and emotionally at least. So far the body has not started to object but it is coming. I will soon start using terms like 'I can feel it in my bones!'
On cold mornings I wake up and I swear I can feel it in my ankle.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
BBC Question Time will hold a US election special in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with an audience of American voters who will put their questions to a panel of politicians and commentators.
The episode will be broadcast in the UK on Thursday 10th October at 8pm on @BBCOne . US audiences can watch on the BBC News Channel, more details below:
OT an interesting comment I saw pop up on my FB feed. Not sure about it as I don't understand AI very well and it all seems a bit tin foil hat to me.
"The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill whilst removing from the skilled the ability to acess wealth."
You could say that about any innovation.
Yes that is essentially the Marxist idea of alienation of Labour.
With AI it is more extreme. The machines are trained on the work of millions, but even if in high demand nothing gets paid to those whose work was the substrate.
Our 31st wedding anniversary today. 34 years to the day since we met. Had a fantastic day in sun drenched Lincoln.
Congratulations Mr & Mrs Tyndall, a great achievement. You’re either older than I thought you were, or got married very young indeed!
Oh I am considerably older than you thought. Three score next year.
I had you early 50s.
It’s interesting how much we get an impression of who other posters here are, and what their lives might look like.
Trouble is I feel like I am 20. Mentally and emotionally at least. So far the body has not started to object but it is coming. I will soon start using terms like 'I can feel it in my bones!'
On cold mornings I wake up and I swear I can feel it in my ankle.
I'm 37, so that feels like a bad sign.
I dislocated my kneecap when I was fifteen years old
My knee was a painful weather vane for more than a quarter of a century
Then I walked over the Pyrenees from Girona to Perpignan a few years ago, and I haven't had a single knee twinge since
I doubt that this would be an effective remedy for everyone experiencing lower leg pain
Our 31st wedding anniversary today. 34 years to the day since we met. Had a fantastic day in sun drenched Lincoln.
Congratulations Mr & Mrs Tyndall, a great achievement. You’re either older than I thought you were, or got married very young indeed!
Oh I am considerably older than you thought. Three score next year.
I had you early 50s.
It’s interesting how much we get an impression of who other posters here are, and what their lives might look like.
A little while ago @BartholomewRoberts guessed I was in my early 40s. Since then I have been more open about my age. I am 70 in a couple of months. @BartholomewRoberts became my favourite poster for sometime after that. I'm guessing it was because of my socially liberal views rather than being the stereotype old codger.
Married Police Chief Superintendent, 41, resigns ahead of misconduct hearing, that he was involved in a relationship with a 24-year-old trainee. They first met five years ago, so aged 36 and 19.
Government needs to better regulate this, so that criminal charges of misconduct in public office can more easily be brought in such cases, and senior officers not allowed to resign when under investigation.
its probably a bit low bar for misconduct in a public office criminal case if everybody willing . Just a sacking I would think is just.Misconduct in a public office for police is usually reserved for corruption or gross negligence on duty.Now if he had taken 30K worth of football tickets and some posh togs
Any sexual relationship between a senior officer and a very young new recruit should automatically meet the threshold for misconduct in public office. Even if he wasn’t married and it was all totally consentual, it’s still a totally unprofessional relationship because of the power imbalance. In a corporate environment, CEOs get fired for this.
Yes but that is a civil/corporate punishment. Not a criminal one. The idea of criminalising such behaviour is ludicrous.
Declaration of interest: I met my wife 34 years ago today, as previously mentioned in this thread, when she arrived as my trainee on a rig. Perhaps we were lucky we were working for a French company who took a rather progressive view of such matters.
The modern corporate environment demands that such relationships are declared, and that they are moved out of the line management structure. In an organisation such as the police or military, where rank has to be respected, a relationship between someone very senior and someone very junior is well across the line. Not to mention the blackmail aspect of a senior officer engaged in an extra-marital relationship at work.
(I also met my wife at work, but we didn’t date before she left the company).
Residents in Northern Israel are reporting a Significant Movement of Israeli Military Equipment, including Tanks and Artillery, towards the Border with Lebanon.
Yoav Gallant reported to have said a new phase has begun.
Married Police Chief Superintendent, 41, resigns ahead of misconduct hearing, that he was involved in a relationship with a 24-year-old trainee. They first met five years ago, so aged 36 and 19.
Government needs to better regulate this, so that criminal charges of misconduct in public office can more easily be brought in such cases, and senior officers not allowed to resign when under investigation.
its probably a bit low bar for misconduct in a public office criminal case if everybody willing . Just a sacking I would think is just.Misconduct in a public office for police is usually reserved for corruption or gross negligence on duty.Now if he had taken 30K worth of football tickets and some posh togs
Any sexual relationship between a senior officer and a very young new recruit should automatically meet the threshold for misconduct in public office. Even if he wasn’t married and it was all totally consentual, it’s still a totally unprofessional relationship because of the power imbalance. In a corporate environment, CEOs get fired for this.
Yes but that is a civil/corporate punishment. Not a criminal one. The idea of criminalising such behaviour is ludicrous.
Declaration of interest: I met my wife 34 years ago today, as previously mentioned in this thread, when she arrived as my trainee on a rig. Perhaps we were lucky we were working for a French company who took a rather progressive view of such matters.
Our 31st wedding anniversary today. 34 years to the day since we met. Had a fantastic day in sun drenched Lincoln.
Congratulations Mr & Mrs Tyndall, a great achievement. You’re either older than I thought you were, or got married very young indeed!
Oh I am considerably older than you thought. Three score next year.
I had you early 50s.
It’s interesting how much we get an impression of who other posters here are, and what their lives might look like.
Trouble is I feel like I am 20. Mentally and emotionally at least. So far the body has not started to object but it is coming. I will soon start using terms like 'I can feel it in my bones!'
On cold mornings I wake up and I swear I can feel it in my ankle.
I'm 37, so that feels like a bad sign.
I've felt the cold in my ankle since I was 15.
Then again, I have metal in my ankle...
The worst is when going from a cold to a hot environment; for instance from a cold room to a hot bath. That can be agony.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Starmer is Brown without the brains, May without the religious faith and Heath without the yachting
And yet, he has a bigger majority than any of them.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
Possibly their convincing answer will be "Because Kemi wasn't in charge". They've previously answer with "That Liz Truss - she seems like the future", so I'm not optimistic.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
That caught my attention, but I see you are being Leonine.
Mr Starmer has swapped his £500 specs for a £220 version. Both are frame prices.
I spend about £400-500 a year on specs if I want two pairs (one without reacting lenses for indoors) at Specsavers, which goes on lenses and necessary options, because I have an interesting prescription. That's with a fair amount of discounts and freebies, which at Specsavers are horribly complicated.
If it was a £500 frame I would be having them re-lensed for the next year.
I don't see the point of paying £500 for an ordinary looking frame, so count me as baffled on thsi one.
I have a severe astigmatism, and pay about £450 for two pairs (thinnest possible lenses).
That's about once every five years or so, though. How are you going through a set of lenses in a year? A changing prescription, or wear and tear?
The Insider Advantage Poll - which was done at the same time as Quinnipac - had Trump at +2.
Quinnipac also has a much larger lead for Harris in Michigan for Harris than the other polls have generally shown.
The Teamsters have also refused to endorse Harris (or Trump) which is a big blow, especially given their influence in the Rustbelt states. But apparently their polling shows Teamster members voting overwhelmingly for Trump.
One final point - the polling in non-swing states (so Indiana, New Mexico, Missouri etc) is closely mirroring what happened in 2020 - which points to another nailbitter.
Armenia claims it has foiled a Russian-backed coup attempt.
Cue the fascist supporters to say that Armenia should go into the Russian sphere for 'peace' ...
Armenia has to rank alongside Kazakhstan as Russia’s most cack handed diplomatic loss in recent years. A country by rights completely economically and militarily dependent on the big boy to the North and surrounded menacingly by its former genociders in Turkey and their kinsmen in Azerbaijan, and Russia conspires to lose even this one.
I have a sneaking suspicion Led by Donkeys won't be pulling any stunts over Clobber-gate, after they made such a big deal about how Farage earns a loads of dosh.
The Insider Advantage Poll - which was done at the same time as Quinnipac - had Trump at +2.
Quinnipac also has a much larger lead for Harris in Michigan for Harris than the other polls have generally shown.
The Teamsters have also refused to endorse Harris (or Trump) which is a big blow, especially given their influence in the Rustbelt states. But apparently their polling shows Teamster members voting overwhelmingly for Trump.
One final point - the polling in non-swing states (so Indiana, New Mexico, Missouri etc) is closely mirroring what happened in 2020 - which points to another nailbitter.
Vlad obviously needs Trump to win, but it’s now about time he started to face up to the prospect of President Harris. My advice would be that he should get out of Ukraine as soon as he can.
Note the following - Teamsters polling actually had Biden leading Trump before the withdrawal but that has now switched to a sharp preference for Trump. My takeaway on that is WWC voters are not impressed by Harris.
"From April 9-July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters local unions nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind Presidential town halls, soliciting endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3 percent to Trump’s 36.3 percent.
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s campaign exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24-Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6 percent for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34 percent for Harris.
In the past week, following the Democratic National Convention and recent Presidential debate, the Teamsters commissioned independent polling firm Lake Research Partners to conduct the union’s final national survey. In the poll ending Sept. 15, Teamsters selected Trump by 58 percent for endorsement over 31 percent for Harris."
Note the following - Teamsters polling actually had Biden leading Trump before the withdrawal but that has now switched to a sharp preference for Trump. My takeaway on that is WWC voters are not impressed by Harris.
"From April 9-July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters local unions nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind Presidential town halls, soliciting endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3 percent to Trump’s 36.3 percent.
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s campaign exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24-Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6 percent for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34 percent for Harris.
In the past week, following the Democratic National Convention and recent Presidential debate, the Teamsters commissioned independent polling firm Lake Research Partners to conduct the union’s final national survey. In the poll ending Sept. 15, Teamsters selected Trump by 58 percent for endorsement over 31 percent for Harris."
Alternative takeaway: the Teamsters are disproportinaelty male and racist...
Note the following - Teamsters polling actually had Biden leading Trump before the withdrawal but that has now switched to a sharp preference for Trump. My takeaway on that is WWC voters are not impressed by Harris.
"From April 9-July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters local unions nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind Presidential town halls, soliciting endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3 percent to Trump’s 36.3 percent.
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s campaign exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24-Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6 percent for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34 percent for Harris.
In the past week, following the Democratic National Convention and recent Presidential debate, the Teamsters commissioned independent polling firm Lake Research Partners to conduct the union’s final national survey. In the poll ending Sept. 15, Teamsters selected Trump by 58 percent for endorsement over 31 percent for Harris."
Alternative takeaway: the Teamsters are disproportinaelty male and racist...
Other alternative takeaway - they were desperate to stop Biden dropping out?
Will the Bank of England follow suit or will the inflation number provide some caution so perhaps a 0.25% rate cut?
Hold next, cut in November I think
We have had 2 months of zero growth, partly caused by the promises of Armageddon in October by our insouciant Chancellor. There is no reason to assume that the economic damage done by these policies is at an end. Since we seem to have acquired a government that is determined to damage growth rather than boost it a cut in the base rate now seems appropriate.
It would of course be novel to see the Bank act timeously but the need for monetary action to offset fiscal tightening is obvious.
Yes marriage works, is the best method for raising children and the Tory leadership contenders should be pushing big tax allowances for married couples
Another "widow" tax, then?
We would restore their winter fuel allowance too and keep their single person’s council tax discount
But only for official widows? Very keen on ensuring further income for the C of E and the weddings industry, you are.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
"Artisan Polish canned food containing the iconic pea soup with homemade sausage and bacon. Ed Red's canned foods contain restaurant meals prepared by chefs using only natural ingredients of the highest quality. They are perfect as a source of sustenance during longer mountain expeditions or camping trips"
Note the following - Teamsters polling actually had Biden leading Trump before the withdrawal but that has now switched to a sharp preference for Trump. My takeaway on that is WWC voters are not impressed by Harris.
"From April 9-July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters local unions nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind Presidential town halls, soliciting endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3 percent to Trump’s 36.3 percent.
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s campaign exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24-Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6 percent for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34 percent for Harris.
In the past week, following the Democratic National Convention and recent Presidential debate, the Teamsters commissioned independent polling firm Lake Research Partners to conduct the union’s final national survey. In the poll ending Sept. 15, Teamsters selected Trump by 58 percent for endorsement over 31 percent for Harris."
Alternative takeaway: the Teamsters are disproportinaelty male and racist...
So they support Trump who said striking workers should be fired . It’s extraordinary how so many US voters continue to vote for someone who doesn’t give a damn about them .
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
Fair point about the skipping of posts, I scroll past much of the needy whining. It might improve when they have surpassed the 0.0001st stage of grief.
"Artisan Polish canned food containing the iconic pea soup with homemade sausage and bacon. Ed Red's canned foods contain restaurant meals prepared by chefs using only natural ingredients of the highest quality. They are perfect as a source of sustenance during longer mountain expeditions or camping trips"
Should I buy a can?
Yes but open it well away from everyone else. Can’t be too careful these days.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
It the likes of the Guardian that seem to be most exercised about things like Clobber-gate at the moment.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
Why not cut to the chase and skip two out of three? The arithmetic's even easier - you only need one hand
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
Fair point about the skipping of posts, I scroll past much of the needy whining. It might improve when they have surpassed the 0.0001st stage of grief.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
Why not cut to the chase and skip two out of three? The arithmetic's even easier - you only need one hand
A useful tip for members of Hezbollah. (Too soon?}
Note the following - Teamsters polling actually had Biden leading Trump before the withdrawal but that has now switched to a sharp preference for Trump. My takeaway on that is WWC voters are not impressed by Harris.
"From April 9-July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters local unions nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind Presidential town halls, soliciting endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3 percent to Trump’s 36.3 percent.
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s campaign exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24-Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6 percent for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34 percent for Harris.
In the past week, following the Democratic National Convention and recent Presidential debate, the Teamsters commissioned independent polling firm Lake Research Partners to conduct the union’s final national survey. In the poll ending Sept. 15, Teamsters selected Trump by 58 percent for endorsement over 31 percent for Harris."
Alternative takeaway: the Teamsters are disproportinaelty male and racist...
Starmer urged to appoint ‘mould-breaking’ outsider as civil service head
The outgoing chair of the John Lewis Partnership, Sharon White, who is also a former chief executive of Ofcom, is thought to be among the favourites to head the civil service, along with Minouche Shafik, a former president of Columbia University in New York....Oliver Robbins, the former Brexit negotiator who had been close to Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, had long been tipped for the job but is now in the frame for national security adviser.
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
Even though I have yet to agree with one, I've never scrolled through a Roger post
*he’s still attending No10 meetings despite having pass removed *close relationship with Sue Gray makes him ever-present figure *he’s donated more than £575,000 to Labour politicians in 4 years *intimate donor dinners at his Mayfair home *lavish late night pool parties with Cabinet ministers at his Kent mansion *he’s the donor to go to when Labour politicians need a suit, loan or birthday party paid for *£14,000 for ‘events’ for Bridget Phillipson shortly before her 40th bday
How can Labour be THIS venal, greedy and stupid? It beggars belief. And then Labour would steal belief from the beggar anyway
Corbyn wouldn't do it!
Unless it was from Hezbollah, in which case he'd make an exception.
Corbyn accepted only one bit of hospitality during his tenure as leader: tickets for Glastonbury. Miliband accepted some tickets for the Olympics, and Brown accepted nothing. Blair accepted quite a bit, but, incredibly, Starmer has accepted more hospitality than his four predecessors combined. And his tenure includes a period when no-one was allowed to do anything.
I suspect Starmer is going to end up hated more bitterly than any PM in modern history. He is already dislikeable - now it turns out he’s greedy and corrupt. And he’s clueless and disapproving and tin-eared. And he has an annoying voice. And little squinty eyes as he frowns at you through his free £20k designer specs, for eating a pie without his permission as he steals your granny’s last lump of coal
What on earth are you going to say about him in 4 years time?
I’m just getting started. It’s quite fun to hate a government and the hatred will only build
You will hate this government, I'm sure, and you'll look back on these days as a relaxing passing of the time. Clueless is perhaps the jibe that counts.
I entirely agree. All the dislikeable stuff about Starmer - even the greed and grift - would be forgivable if he looked like he has a single good idea for really improving the UK. But so far: nada
Makes me wonder why you voted for him.
The bitterness at the Labour victory has been quite something. All these Tories who went into hiding going into the election are now screaming at the moon. Hopefully they'll settle down and stop the dull repetitive posts but it might take a while. The nice thing is you can skip 4 out of 6 posts which makes the thread easier to flick through
Well it’s not easy coming to terms with the fact that you got hammered by a bunch of clueless muppets. It’s almost enough to bring on some self reflection and awareness. Moaning is much less painful.
Is ‘Renegade Pollster’ a renegade in the Muscovite sense per chance?
But just to get you spouting off a few more conspiracy theories, here is how Quinnipac did in 2020 in swing states namely significantly overstating the Democrat lead
"Artisan Polish canned food containing the iconic pea soup with homemade sausage and bacon. Ed Red's canned foods contain restaurant meals prepared by chefs using only natural ingredients of the highest quality. They are perfect as a source of sustenance during longer mountain expeditions or camping trips"
Should I buy a can?
Mm, I see they also do tripe in tomato, lovage and marjoram.
Capping all salaries at the PM's level is one of the biggest problems we have in attracting and retaining major leadership talent in the public sector.
Firstly, the PM salary is paid *on top* of that of being an MP, so he's actually on 240k+, secondly there are perks and privileges to being PM, and third you can cream in a lot more with memoirs and speeches after leaving office. But in any event the 160k headline level is far too low for a PM/CEO/major leadership job and well below the market rate, which would be more like 400-600k, so you get real doughnuts in the public sector instead whilst the rest go into consultancy, private businesses or set up for themselves.
Starmer urged to appoint ‘mould-breaking’ outsider as civil service head
The outgoing chair of the John Lewis Partnership, Sharon White, who is also a former chief executive of Ofcom, is thought to be among the favourites to head the civil service, along with Minouche Shafik, a former president of Columbia University in New York....Oliver Robbins, the former Brexit negotiator who had been close to Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, had long been tipped for the job but is now in the frame for national security adviser.
"Artisan Polish canned food containing the iconic pea soup with homemade sausage and bacon. Ed Red's canned foods contain restaurant meals prepared by chefs using only natural ingredients of the highest quality. They are perfect as a source of sustenance during longer mountain expeditions or camping trips"
Should I buy a can?
Mm, I see they also do tripe in tomato, lovage and marjoram.
Capping all salaries at the PM's level is one of the biggest problems we have in attracting and retaining major leadership talent in the public sector.
Firstly, the PM salary is paid *on top* of that of being an MP, so he's actually on 240k+, secondly there are perks and privileges to being PM, and third you can cream in a lot more with memoirs and speeches after leaving office. But in any event the 160k headline level is far too low for a PM/CEO/major leadership job and well below the market rate, which would be more like 400-600k, so you get real doughnuts in the public sector instead whilst the rest go into consultancy, private businesses or set up for themselves.
To be fair, there are plenty of doughnuts in the private sector as well.
Starmer urged to appoint ‘mould-breaking’ outsider as civil service head
The outgoing chair of the John Lewis Partnership, Sharon White, who is also a former chief executive of Ofcom, is thought to be among the favourites to head the civil service, along with Minouche Shafik, a former president of Columbia University in New York....Oliver Robbins, the former Brexit negotiator who had been close to Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, had long been tipped for the job but is now in the frame for national security adviser.
Starmer urged to appoint ‘mould-breaking’ outsider as civil service head
The outgoing chair of the John Lewis Partnership, Sharon White, who is also a former chief executive of Ofcom, is thought to be among the favourites to head the civil service, along with Minouche Shafik, a former president of Columbia University in New York....Oliver Robbins, the former Brexit negotiator who had been close to Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, had long been tipped for the job but is now in the frame for national security adviser.
Comments
I’m sure all their well,off southern constituents will welcome having more of their money expropriated to throw into a vast bottomless pit that will never have enough.
Mind you should they have a chance to go into power after the next election I’m sure they’d happily abandon any principles for a ministerial car and ministerial office.
Mr Starmer has swapped his £500 specs for a £220 version. Both are frame prices.
I spend about £400-500 a year on specs if I want two pairs (one without reacting lenses for indoors) at Specsavers, which goes on lenses and necessary options, because I have an interesting prescription. That's with a fair amount of discounts and freebies, which at Specsavers are horribly complicated.
If it was a £500 frame I would be having them re-lensed for the next year.
I don't see the point of paying £500 for an ordinary looking frame, so count me as baffled on thsi one.
Close to 0 out of 10 so far on these. I am very surprised. I had thought, if anything, he would overdo all this to play for safety. I suppose he should be given until early next year to see if he can recover.
The big winners from the state of play currently should be the LDs.
Until the Conservatives have a convincing answer to "why did we lose to someone so meh", they're howling at the moon.
https://x.com/hydrosmarkets/status/1836092777165197415?s=61
As with the UK election, the incumbents can shout all they like about the economic statistics being awesome, but that doesn’t come close to matching most people’s actual economic experiences of the last few years.
Go back to the 80s and 90s, and Chris Patten and John Redwood, Michael Heseltine and Ann Widdicombe, were able to coexist, however grumpily. For whatever reason, that's unimaginable right now. Doesn't matter who is to blame, it just isn't.
As long as the right is more badly split than the left, it will struggle to win. And whilst dislike of Corbyn provided sufficient glue for a while, I don't think Starmer hate will be as effective.
Having enjoyed a pleasant afternoon at Sandown and relieved the bookies of a few quid, I'm reminded Lady Victoria Starmer is a big horse racing fan and both she and the Prime Minister attended the St Leger at Doncaster.
As I assume they didn't queue for the Tatts enclosure, there was an invitation from the racecourse to attend. Should that be declared as hospitality? There was likely to have been lunch in the Directors' Box (another bit of grift persumably? So much better if they had queued at the burger van or tried the chinese food van - hint, NEVER eat chow mein outdoors while wearing a white shirt on a windy day).
In the spirit of the new puritanism, should any bets be declared as well? I mean, he's a public servant paid from the public purse so if he had a tenner on ILLINOIS in the Leger, should that be permitted? Perhaps if they won any money, that should be donated to Rachel Reeves to help offset the deficit or put an RN nuclear sub back in the water since we are apparently defenceless thanks to the new Government (and the old one as well).
We stayed in a lovely hotel in Fakenham - hard to believe that is now a marginal constituency which Labour would take on a 0.8% swing.
What I couldn't believe was how many people in Norfolk had dogs...
"The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill whilst removing from the skilled the ability to acess wealth."
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
NOW I’m starting to believe...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/
The bigger question is whether such "generosity" buys any kind of influence in the decision making process. If I gave the LDs £50, would I expect a meeting with Ed Davey on an issue of policy? No, I wouldn't. Do those who offer the hospitality expect anything from it? Do Arena Racing think giving the Prime Minister and his wife a day at the Leger will affect the PM's view on affordability checks? I don't know though they might have taken the opportunity over lunch to raise it as a discussion item.
Declaration of interest: I met my wife 34 years ago today, as previously mentioned in this thread, when she arrived as my trainee on a rig. Perhaps we were lucky we were working for a French company who took a rather progressive view of such matters.
If Labour voters stay at home next time, then I'm not sure a Tory - Reform coalition isn't impossible. It would probably be the best outcome too - the Tories would moderate some of the more wacky elements in Reform, Reform would keep the Tories honest and block the Sunak style "talk right, act left" approach.
I'm 37, so that feels like a bad sign.
@BBCNewsPR
BBC Question Time will hold a US election special in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with an audience of American voters who will put their questions to a panel of politicians and commentators.
The episode will be broadcast in the UK on Thursday 10th October at 8pm on @BBCOne
. US audiences can watch on the BBC News Channel, more details below:
https://bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2024/question-time-us-election-special
===
What's the betting that Farage is one of the panel?
With AI it is more extreme. The machines are trained on the work of millions, but even if in high demand nothing gets paid to those whose work was the substrate.
My knee was a painful weather vane for more than a quarter of a century
Then I walked over the Pyrenees from Girona to Perpignan a few years ago, and I haven't had a single knee twinge since
I doubt that this would be an effective remedy for everyone experiencing lower leg pain
(I also met my wife at work, but we didn’t date before she left the company).
סיירת מטכ״ל
Then again, I have metal in my ankle...
The worst is when going from a cold to a hot environment; for instance from a cold room to a hot bath. That can be agony.
Cue the fascist supporters to say that Armenia should go into the Russian sphere for 'peace' ...
That's about once every five years or so, though. How are you going through a set of lenses in a year? A changing prescription, or wear and tear?
The Insider Advantage Poll - which was done at the same time as Quinnipac - had Trump at +2.
Quinnipac also has a much larger lead for Harris in Michigan for Harris than the other polls have generally shown.
The Teamsters have also refused to endorse Harris (or Trump) which is a big blow, especially given their influence in the Rustbelt states. But apparently their polling shows Teamster members voting overwhelmingly for Trump.
One final point - the polling in non-swing states (so Indiana, New Mexico, Missouri etc) is closely mirroring what happened in 2020 - which points to another nailbitter.
It's lucky that he abuses his privilege for the nation's interest
https://x.com/itvnews/status/1836422761956139399
https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/
Note the following - Teamsters polling actually had Biden leading Trump before the withdrawal but that has now switched to a sharp preference for Trump. My takeaway on that is WWC voters are not impressed by Harris.
"From April 9-July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters local unions nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind Presidential town halls, soliciting endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3 percent to Trump’s 36.3 percent.
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s campaign exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24-Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6 percent for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34 percent for Harris.
In the past week, following the Democratic National Convention and recent Presidential debate, the Teamsters commissioned independent polling firm Lake Research Partners to conduct the union’s final national survey. In the poll ending Sept. 15, Teamsters selected Trump by 58 percent for endorsement over 31 percent for Harris."
It would of course be novel to see the Bank act timeously but the need for monetary action to offset fiscal tightening is obvious.
So you’re probably right.
leadergrand wizard, is expected to deliver a televised address in response to the attacks on Thursday.This won google
https://military.pl/en/p/ed-red/ed-red-canned-food-general-s-pea-soup-400-g-2470607
"Artisan Polish canned food containing the iconic pea soup with homemade sausage and bacon. Ed Red's canned foods contain restaurant meals prepared by chefs using only natural ingredients of the highest quality. They are perfect as a source of sustenance during longer mountain expeditions or camping trips"
Should I buy a can?
Starmer urged to appoint ‘mould-breaking’ outsider as civil service head
The outgoing chair of the John Lewis Partnership, Sharon White, who is also a former chief executive of Ofcom, is thought to be among the favourites to head the civil service, along with Minouche Shafik, a former president of Columbia University in New York....Oliver Robbins, the former Brexit negotiator who had been close to Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, had long been tipped for the job but is now in the frame for national security adviser.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/starmer-urged-to-appoint-outsider-civil-service-head-simon-case
The potential commie Partridge is irresistible
I don't know how reliable this person is, but they claim incomplete list of Hezbollah-held items that exploded today:
• Smartphones
• Radios (including car radios)
• Laptops
• Walkie talkies
• Home intercoms
• Home solar energy systems
• Batteries
https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1836443015289704594
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/pollster/quinnipiac-2020-2016-swing-states.
Firstly, the PM salary is paid *on top* of that of being an MP, so he's actually on 240k+, secondly there are perks and privileges to being PM, and third you can cream in a lot more with memoirs and speeches after leaving office. But in any event the 160k headline level is far too low for a PM/CEO/major leadership job and well below the market rate, which would be more like 400-600k, so you get real doughnuts in the public sector instead whilst the rest go into consultancy, private businesses or set up for themselves.